Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Cannabis

  • 16 Sept 2025

    HKSAR v. LI GWING CHIU

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 857
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC191/2024

    The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused because the starting point of 13 years for the quantity involved was not manifestly excessive in light of relevant appellate authorities, the judge properly applied a one-third discount for the guilty plea resulting in 8 years 8 months, and the fresh evidence was not admitted (only de bene esse) as it was neither credible nor adequately explained; delay in proceedings did not amount to prejudice requiring reduction.

  • 8 Jun 2010

    HKSAR v. NG SIU FUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NG SIU FUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC46/2009

    For trafficking in about 1,600g of ketamine in the absence of aggravating factors, the appropriate starting point under Lee Tak Kwan is 10 years imprisonment; an additional 6 months for 990.99g of herbal cannabis is appropriate; accordingly the appellate court reduced the sentence from 12 years to 10 years and allowed the appeal against sentence.

  • 17 Feb 2000

    HKSAR v. PHUNG HAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. PHUNG HAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA25/2000

    The court found the six month sentence manifestly excessive for possession of 1.18 grams of cannabis, having regard to authorities on tariffs for larger quantities and the distinction between possession and trafficking; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to two months imprisonment.

  • 20 Jan 1993

    R. v. LARM TAT MING

    Citation
    R. v. LARM TAT MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC427/1992

    The Court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence from 15 to 12 months imprisonment because, while guilty plea and the form of the drug (herbal cannabis) warranted reduction from a resin-based starting point, the appellant's participation in the business of trafficking was an aggravating factor; the trial judge's failure to state a starting point was noted but did not preclude modification of the sentence by the Court.

  • 11 Dec 1986

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR19/1986

    Methaqualone is to be regarded on the same scale of seriousness as opium for sentencing purposes; the Court prescribes a tariff in grammes (mirroring opium tariffs and extending higher bands) and, for tablet seizures, adopts a conversion by deeming each tablet to contain 250 mg of methaqualone for sentencing; applying these principles the Court substituted a five year term for the respondent's two year sentence.

  • 29 Sept 1982

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHEUNG WAI-LEUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHEUNG WAI-LEUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR7/1982

    A sentence of imprisonment must not be suspended on condition of payment of a fine where that condition would expose the offender to a greater penalty than statutory default; where no inquiry into ability to pay is made and the suspension would subvert the statutory default penalty, the fines and conditional suspension are unlawful and the appropriate immediate terms of imprisonment should be imposed.