Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Armed robbery

  • 20 Jan 2023

    HKSAR v. SAHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 102
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC173/2021

    Given premeditation, use of a large chopper, public commission in broad daylight, coordinated conduct and the HK$4 million target, a 9-year starting point was appropriate; enhancements for Form 8 recognizance status and prior robbery convictions were justified and not impermissibly double‑counted; a 3‑year consecutive element for A1 was proportionate; therefore the individual sentences of 6 years 7 months for each appellant (with A1 having 3 years consecutive to his existing 8 years 4 months) were lawful and not manifestly excessive.

  • 1 Jun 2022

    HKSAR v. LO SING CHEE (also known as LO SHING CHI)

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 800
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC41/2021

    Leave to appeal out of time was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds that the 6 year sentence was excessive; the sentence accorded with Mo Kwong-sang for an armed robbery of business premises involving a displayed knife and the applicant's mitigation did not justify disturbance of sentence.

  • 8 Oct 2018

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG HON YUEN

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 677
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC15/2018

    The applicant's leave to appeal against sentence is refused because the sentence was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: a 20% reduction for late guilty plea was appropriate given prolonged absconding, co-defendants' sentences were not demonstrably lighter on comparable facts, and parity with unrelated cases is inapplicable; totality principle was properly applied.

  • 23 Jan 2018

    HKSAR v. MISHCHENKO OLEG

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 51
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC246/2017

    Given the knife was substantial and purchased for the purpose of the robbery, the premises were a targeted vulnerable currency exchange, the victim suffered physical restraint and minor injury and a large sum was stolen, the judge was entitled to adopt an 8‑year starting point; applying a one‑third discount for an early guilty plea produced a sentence of 5 years 4 months which was not excessive, so leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

  • 29 Jun 2016

    HKSAR v. MBACHU CHARLES SUNDAY

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MBACHU CHARLES SUNDAY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC307/2009

    The Court refused the nullity application because the applicant failed to prove that the Notice of Abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act: his explanations were inconsistent and delayed, a prior nullity application had failed, the co-defendant's identical appeal had been dismissed, and the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive; therefore the abandonment stands and the application is refused.

  • 12 Aug 2015

    HKSAR v. LEUNG PUI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEUNG PUI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC349/2014

    Given the serious and multiple aggravating features (careful planning, use of knives, number of offenders, importation of four Mainland participants, resistance to arrest and injury to police, and victims being a vulnerable money exchange business), the starting point of 12 years and the individual enhancements applied by the judge were within the appropriate range and properly reflected individual culpability; the guilty plea discount was correctly applied; therefore leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

  • 1 Jun 2011

    HKSAR v. SUN YU HING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SUN YU HING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC398/2010

    Although the judge correctly identified aggravating features, a 10-year starting point was excessive in the circumstances; a more appropriate starting point was 8 years. The appellant's flight to the Mainland after the offence justified reducing the usual one-third discount to 20%. Applying a 20% discount to an 8-year starting point produced an appropriate sentence of 6 years and 10 months imprisonment, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

  • 20 Jan 2011

    HKSAR v. CHOI HUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHOI HUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC225/2010

    Given weapons were displayed on both occasions, physical violence occurred in the first robbery, and aggravating factors (two perpetrators, vulnerable victim) applied, the trial judge's notional starting point and application of the totality principle produced a permissible total effective sentence of five years six months; there is no basis to interfere and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

  • 28 May 2010

    HKSAR v. WANG WEI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WANG WEI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC446/2009

    The court held that the sentencing judge erred in reducing the normal one-third discount because the applicant had not surrendered; a timely plea entered at first appearance entitled the applicant to the full one-third discount. Although the 'bank account' feature and brief detention were significant aggravating factors, the appellate court was satisfied the appropriate starting point of nine years (pre-plea) need not be disturbed on these facts; applying the full one-third discount reduced the sentence to six years, and the seven year sentence was set aside and substituted with six years imp…

  • 1 Sept 2009

    HKSAR v. FU CHOI CHUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. FU CHOI CHUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC367/2008

    Given multiple, well‑planned armed robberies using an imitation pistol, the applicant's serious prior convictions and lack of causal connection between alleged psychiatric/drug problems and the offences, the 10 year total sentence is not manifestly excessive and is appropriate; leave to appeal against sentence is refused.