Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Aggravated burglary

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2022

香港特別行政區訴張建清

Citation

[2022] HKCA 232
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC229/2021

The Court concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal: the sentencing judge adopted principled and established starting points for the two offences, correctly factored aggravating and mitigating features, applied the one‑third plea discount, and legitimately ordered a 12‑month period to run concurrently; the aggregate sentence of 3 years 10 months was not manifestly excessive and the leave application is dismissed.
16 May 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN MAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 522
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC216/2017

The Court held the individual sentences of 6 years for aggravated burglary and 8 years for rape were not manifestly excessive given premeditation, weapon and violent sexual conduct, but applying the totality principle and noting substantial overlap in objectives between the offences the composite sentence was excessive and must be reduced from 11 years to 9 years 6 months by ordering 1 year 6 months of the Count 1 sentence to run consecutively to Count 5.
2 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. CHAN LI FAT

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN LI FAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC308/2009

The court upheld the life sentences and 18‑year minimum term on the two rape counts but held the aggravated burglary offences did not warrant discretionary life sentences; it allowed the appeal against sentence on aggravated burglary and substituted determinate sentences of 6 years 8 months on each count (second to run consecutively to the first totalling 9 years) to run concurrently with the life sentences on the rape counts, and confirmed that an 18‑year minimum term on the rape counts was fully justified on the facts despite consideration of remission principles.
9 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. YANG MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YANG MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC384/2004

The full bench held the sentencing approach was correct: a 7‑year starting point for the aggravated burglary, a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea, and a proper totality assessment producing an overall effective sentence of 8 years for all offences; consolidation was impermissible for jurisdictional and Rule 7 reasons; the renewed application had no merit and was dismissed; the court ordered that time in custody from 18 December 2004 to date not be reckoned under its power in section 83W CPO.
15 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. LI SIU YEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LI SIU YEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC232/2004

Possession of the knife during the burglary established aggravated burglary and justified a 3‑year starting point; the 12‑month starting point for resisting a police officer was appropriate given he menaced officers with a knife; the fresh evidence was inconsistent with prior statements and would not have affected mitigation, so it was not admitted; therefore leave to appeal against the sentences on the 1st and 3rd charges is refused and the sentences are affirmed.
10 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. KEI SAN MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. KEI SAN MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/1999

The cumulative sentence of 5 years for the two burglaries was manifestly excessive given the facts and the two offences formed part of one spree; the appropriate cumulative sentence for the burglaries is 3 years, achieved by directing 18 months of the sentences on charges 1 and 2 to be served concurrently, with the 15 month immigration sentence to remain consecutive, resulting in a total effective sentence of 4 years and 9 months for each applicant.
12 Feb 1999

HKSAR v. SZETO MAN KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. SZETO MAN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC621/1998

The sentencing judge had properly considered the circumstances and the existing 3-year sentence and applied the totality principle; even if the offences were combined the resulting overall sentence of five years would not be manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal out of time is refused and the application is dismissed.
25 Sept 1998

HKSAR v. CHUNG CHI PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG CHI PIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC453/1997

The Court held that the jury's acquittal on the trespass-with-arms count (count 1) and guilty verdict on the alternative possession count (count 2) were inconsistent such that no reasonable properly directed jury could have reached both verdicts; accordingly the conviction on count 2 (possession under s13 Cap.238) was quashed. The conviction for aggravated burglary (count 3) was upheld because the evidence against all appellants was sufficient and any trial irregularity did not produce a miscarriage of justice such that the proviso to s83 Cap.221 would apply.
11 Jul 1997

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI PING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/1997

The Court held that the trial judge's two year uplift to the starting point was excessive; the proper starting point for the aggravated burglary was 4.5 years, reducible by one-third for an early guilty plea to three years, and that nine months of the 15 month immigration sentence should run consecutively to produce a total sentence of three years and nine months.
2 Sept 1994

TSANG KAM CHEONG v. R.

Citation

TSANG KAM CHEONG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC623/1993

Although the court considered that the facts supported a conviction for murder and the plea of manslaughter should not have been accepted, on the constrained basis of manslaughter the offending was of the worst kind justifying the highest available punishment and, given three separate violent episodes, overwhelming evidence and the applicant's dangerousness, the aggregate sentence of 31 years was not excessive and the application for leave to appeal was refused.