Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attempted theft

Legal area

Court

6 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. WONG KAM SHING

Citation

[2023] HKCA 726
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC46/2022

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the sentencing judge conducted a careful, comprehensive analysis, applied the correct starting point, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, administered a proper guilty plea discount and the totality principle, and arrived at a 6‑year sentence that was within the District Court ceiling and not manifestly excessive; the applicant's delay and explanations did not justify granting leave.
13 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. CHIN CHIN FAI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 83
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC70/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge properly applied sentencing principles: the theft of the LGV materially increased culpability beyond the attempted theft, the driving offences added separate public safety culpability and justified partial consecutive sentencing, and the aggregate 46 months was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the offending and antecedents.
30 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. TALWINDER, SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1411
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA61/2020

The magistrate was entitled to adopt a starting point within the pickpocketing guideline and to reduce the guilty plea discount because the appellant had absconded; the reduced discount (slightly less than 25%) and sentence of 9 months and 1 day were proportionate and not excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
19 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. KEUNG CHEUNG YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 155
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA477/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the trial Magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witnesses' contemporary observations that liquid was flowing through a hose into the tugboat was rationally open on the evidence; photographs taken hours later showing a dry hose and a closed valve did not establish tampering or negate the witnesses' account when there was no evidence of the hose's condition or handling at the earlier time. The Magistrate did not draw an adverse inference from A1's statement and correctly applied the law that a lie alone is not proof of guilt; hence the convictions were safe…
6 Dec 2017

香港特別行政區訴詹國威

Citation

香港特別行政區訴詹國威
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA637/2016

The trial judge's findings that the witnesses were credible and correctly identified the appellant were supported by the evidence (witness accounts, appellant's admission of presence, the relay pursuit and absence of other black-clad persons) and were not unsafe; the act of unzipping another's bag constituted conduct beyond mere preparation and sufficed for attempted theft, therefore the conviction and sentence were upheld.
30 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. PATARROYO JIMENEZ GUILLERMO

Citation

HKSAR v. PATARROYO JIMENEZ GUILLERMO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC256/2016

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge properly selected a 15-month starting point for a serious pickpocketing offence, lawfully enhanced it for identified aggravating factors while avoiding double counting, considered totality and concurrency, and no reasonably arguable ground of appeal was demonstrated.
22 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. ZUNDUIDAVAA ZINAMEDER

Citation

HKSAR v. ZUNDUIDAVAA ZINAMEDER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC235/2016

There was no arguable ground that the sentence was excessive: given the organized, professional nature of the three‑person pickpocketing gang and aggravating factors (tourist location, international element, abuse of hospitality) a starting point of two years was justified, the one‑third plea discount to 20 months was appropriate, and the activation of the 14‑day suspended sentence to run consecutively was lawful; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
11 Apr 2014

HKSAR v. YU LUNG HOI

Citation

HKSAR v. YU LUNG HOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC379/2013

The 30-month starting point for charge 1 was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's persistent previous convictions, the commission of the offence in a crowded public place and joint action with another offender; the trial judge properly applied a guilty plea discount and was entitled to order consecutive sentences because the offences were separate in time and the applicant absconded and committed further offences, therefore the total 36‑month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
19 Jun 2013

香港特別行政區訴李梦軍

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李梦軍
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA187/2013

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge entitled to assess witness credibility accepted the prosecution eyewitnesses' account, the alleged inconsistencies were reasonably explained by differing vantage points, the appellant had admitted his right hand could perform the zipper action, and there was no obligation on the judge to order a medical examination for the defence; therefore the conviction was supported by the evidence and should stand.
29 May 2013

HKSAR v. TAM YING CHOI

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM YING CHOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC266/2012

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings that the applicant either had no permission to enter the occupant's locked room or, if he had general permission to inspect, he exceeded that permission by entering with the intention to steal as demonstrated by the video; accordingly the conviction was safe and leave to appeal was refused.