Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Comparative sentencing precedents

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴鄺健薰

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA417/2023

On rehearing the court found the appellant's in‑court assertion that he thought the phone was his lacked credibility; taking a phone left at a bank counter involved opportunity to consider and inquire and was sufficiently culpable to justify a 4.5‑month starting point which, after discount for guilty plea, properly produced a 3‑month immediate custodial sentence; the sentence is not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Jul 2017

HKSAR v. DARBOE LANSANA AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. DARBOE LANSANA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/2017

The court held that the magistrate did not err in principle in adopting a 2-year starting point per offence for the trafficking offences involved; the late guilty plea warranted only a 6-month reduction rather than a full one-third; separate offences are to be treated independently (no aggregation of quantities); and comparative lenient sentences in other cases do not warrant reduction of a correct sentence.
9 May 2003

HKSAR v. LAU KWOK AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KWOK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC529/2001

The Court held the sentences (4 years for the two police officers and 3 years for the third applicant) were not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of police corruption that enabled suspects to evade prosecution, the comparable authorities, and the absence of undue delay or misapplication of mitigation; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
23 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. HO KA FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KA FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC286/1999

Given the seriousness of the breach of trust, the substantial amount taken over an extended period and the need for deterrence, the trial judge properly imposed a custodial sentence; he gave generous reductions for plea, restitution and delay and the resulting 18-month term was not manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal against sentence was correctly refused.
21 May 1992

THE QUEEN v. CHEUK FUNG PING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUK FUNG PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC423/1991

Given the accepted facts of assault on the victim and attempted forced entry into the bedroom, the offence was aggravated and the sentence of 3.5 years was not excessive; the appellant gave no sufficient reason for delay to justify granting leave out of time, so the application was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 鄺健薰

HKSAR v. DARBOE LANSANA AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LAU KWOK AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HO KA FUNG

THE QUEEN v. CHEUK FUNG PING

香港特別行政區訴鄺健薰