Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Bind over

  • 30 Jul 2001

    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO YUI SING (R2)

    Citation
    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO YUI SING (R2)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR3/2001

    The Court held the magistrate's imposition of absolute discharges in these typical first‑time shoplifting cases was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate because he adopted a personal policy, unduly emphasised avoidance of recording convictions as a substitute for sentencing, and failed properly to balance deterrence, retribution, prevention and rehabilitation; the applications for review were allowed but sentences were not increased in view of the particular handling and multiple attendances of the respondents.

  • 30 Jul 2001

    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TSE SHEUNG KAI (R1)

    Citation
    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TSE SHEUNG KAI (R1)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR2/2001

    The Court held that the magistrate erred in principle by adopting a de facto policy of routinely imposing absolute discharges for first-time shoplifters to avoid criminal records and to compensate for perceived inconsistent prosecutorial practice; absolute discharge is rarely appropriate for shoplifting because deterrence and public interest require punishment. The sentences were therefore wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate, but the Court declined to increase the individual sentences in the exercise of its discretion given the procedural burden already suffered by the defendants.

  • 30 Jul 2001

    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG NGONG SHAN (R3)

    Citation
    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG NGONG SHAN (R3)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR4/2001

    The Court allowed the applications: the magistrate erred in law and in principle by adopting a personal sentencing policy that prioritised consistency and rehabilitation to the exclusion of deterrence and public interest, and by treating conviction itself as adequate punishment; absolute discharges were manifestly inadequate for typical shoplifting offences, but the Court declined to increase the individual sentences given the way the cases had already been handled.

  • 30 Jul 2001

    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG MAR LUK (R5)

    Citation
    THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG MAR LUK (R5)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR6/2001

    The magistrate erred in principle by adopting a personal policy of routinely imposing absolute discharges for first-time, low-value shoplifting offences, treating the recording of conviction as itself an adequate penalty and pressuring prosecution on bind over options; such approach was manifestly inadequate given the need for deterrence and consistency with ordinary sentencing principles, therefore the applications for review are allowed though the Court will not increase the individual sentences in these sample cases.