Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attempted burglary

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴陳永忠

Citation

[2025] HKCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC138/2024

Leave to appeal against sentence refused. The Court held the aggregate 4‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive because the original sentencing judge properly applied starting points and uplift factors, correctly weighed the applicant's extensive prior convictions and aggravating features (professional burglar, use of tools, offending on bail, entry into occupied premises at night), and lawfully ordered partial concurrency under the totality principle.
3 Mar 2020

HKSAR v. JARMANJIT SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCA 131
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge gave comprehensive reasons, properly assessed credibility and identification evidence, and there was no arguable basis to disturb the finding that the applicant was the person observed attempting to break into Flat B3.
9 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. SAEED UR REHMAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 503
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC257/2017

Any limited deficiencies in the interpreter's translation did not produce material unfairness because the witness subsequently and clearly confirmed that his courtroom evidence (that the appellant was not with him) was the correct version, the judge correctly understood and evaluated that evidence against strong and consistent prosecution testimony, rejected the defence accounts and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt; therefore the conviction was safe.
26 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. SAEED UR REHMAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 234
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC257/2017

Leave to appeal was granted because the court found that a significant piece of exculpatory testimony by a prosecution witness had not been fully interpreted at trial; that omission was sufficiently serious to raise a plainly arguable ground that the applicant's right to a fair trial may have been infringed and therefore warranted appellate scrutiny rather than being disposed of by a proviso assessment at this stage.
21 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. AMJED ALI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 89
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/2017

The judge applied appropriate starting points and properly identified aggravating and mitigating factors, including prior similar convictions as aggravation and a one‑third reduction for guilty pleas; an overall starting point of 6.5 years reduced by one third to 52 months was not manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
14 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. TSANG CHUN YIN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 94
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC170/2017

Appeal allowed in part: while a non-custodial sentence was not appropriate because the circumstances were not exceptional, the judge gave insufficient weight to the appellant's youth, prior good character and mitigation; consequentially the court reduced the cumulative custodial element by substituting 4 months consecutive custody (instead of 8 months) so that the total effective sentence is 18 months' imprisonment.
22 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. SINGH SUKHCHAIN

Citation

HKSAR v. SINGH SUKHCHAIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC323/2016

Leave to appeal refused because the overall sentence of 28 months for two separate burglary offences, taken together with the applicant's history of dishonesty and that one offence was committed while on bail, was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; even if the starting point for the opportunistic burglary could be viewed as high in isolation, the global sentence and the imposition of a short consecutive term were within the range open to the sentencing judge.
23 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. SHA KAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. SHA KAI LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC239/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge acted in accordance with established sentencing guidelines and authorities: the applicant's substantial record of similar offences justified higher starting points, the imposition of partly concurrent and partly consecutive sentences for separate distinct offences was appropriate, and offences committed on bail legitimately justified consecutive sentences; subsequent sentences imposed by other courts did not render the present sentences excessive and should be challenged in the appeals from those sentences (with consolidation ordered if…
14 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. LEUNG TING FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG TING FUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC109/2014

A sentencing judge must treat offences committed on bail as an aggravating factor reflected by increasing the starting point for sentence, but such offending does not automatically justify ordering sentences to be served consecutively to existing sentences; the judge must step back, take a global view of totality and explain the reasons for any consecutive order. Where a judge failed to do so and failed to treat offending-on-bail as aggravating, the court will quash the sentences and resentence applying these principles.
11 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD FAROOQ

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD FAROOQ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC406/2013

The renewed out‑of‑time application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed because the proposed grounds are unmeritorious: the sentencing judge rightly adopted a 3‑year starting point for attempted domestic burglary, properly assessed mitigation and prior convictions, and there are no substantial grounds to disturb the sentence; however the court exercised its s83W power to disallow 6 weeks of custody pending appeal because the applicant persisted after receiving a loss‑of‑time warning.