Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bail considerations

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. NAJAM, SHERAZ

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4193
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA146/2025

The Magistrate correctly applied s67A CPO: only the 60 days of detention immediately prior to first appearance and connected to the offence is deductible; earlier administrative/judicial detentions dating back over a decade and unrelated to the offence are not deductible absent exceptional circumstances and none existed here; the 15 months' sentence on guilty plea accords with authority and is not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
10 Feb 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK TING MELISSA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2023

The judge exercised the discretion under s.84(b) and refused to issue arrest warrants/alter bail because the case stated grounds were broadly formulated and effectively challenged factual credibility (not legal errors), the respondents’ defences had been accepted at trial and there was no clear and obvious legal error (perversity) to justify intervention, the offences were relatively low in gravity and respondents had complied with bail for a prolonged period, and issuing warrants or further restrictions would be unnecessary and disproportionate to preserve the status quo.
13 May 2021

HKSAR v. WAN YIU SING EDMUND

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP143/2021

Bail was refused because the charges were serious, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was strong, and the applicant's demonstrated fundraising links and contacts abroad created a real and substantial risk of absconding and of continuing to commit acts endangering national security; accordingly the applicant failed the necessary threshold and bail was inappropriate.
21 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA713/2000

The court held that while individual custodial terms were appropriate given repeat commercial infringement, the aggregate sentence of 3 years was excessive in light of guilty pleas and statutory limits on magistrates; the proper reduction to a total of 2 years was warranted and the costs orders lacked a valid basis and were set aside.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. NAJAM, SHERAZ

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK TING MELISSA

HKSAR v. WAN YIU SING EDMUND

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG