Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrency and consecutiveness of sentences

Legal area

Court

14 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG YAT SING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 752
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA536/2019

The court allowed the appeal in part, concluding that the appellant merited additional mitigation for delay and assistance but that the offences were distinct so only limited concurrency was appropriate; the overall sentence was reduced from 20 months to 15 months by reducing each 15‑month starting point to 10 months, ordering Charges 2 and 3 concurrent, and structuring 5 months consecutive to Charge 1 to produce a total of 15 months' imprisonment.
16 May 2012

HKSAR v. NGUYEN ANH CUONG

Citation

HKSAR v. NGUYEN ANH CUONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC414/2011

The Court dismissed the appeal: the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The judge properly applied a one third enhancement under OSCO for organised offending, validly fixed starting points (including a high starting point for repeated breach of a deportation order), and applied a generous one third discount for late guilty pleas; the overall sentence of 64 months imprisonment was justified and upheld.
20 Jun 2008

HKSAR v. FONG CHUN HEI, ERNIE

Citation

HKSAR v. FONG CHUN HEI, ERNIE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2006

The Court held that the applicant had rendered assistance sufficient to justify increasing the discount to 40% on the adopted starting points, recalculated individual sentences with specified concurrency and consecutiveness, and applied the totality principle to reduce the aggregate sentence from 62 months to 42 months; the appeal was allowed to that extent.
6 Sept 1984

THE QUEEN v. YU WING-WUT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YU WING-WUT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC346/1984

The Court held the sentences were excessive; reduced the sentence for possession of a forged travel document to 18 months imprisonment and varied the sentence for unlawful remaining to 6 months, ordering three months of the latter concurrent with the first sentence and three months consecutive, because the offences were related but not the same transaction and the initial three year term was disproportionate given comparable authorities.
2 Jun 1978

FUNG KA-SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

FUNG KA-SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1286/1977

The Court upheld the custodial element (15 months on each of five counts, concurrent) as appropriate given the large quantity and the appellant's active role, but found the fines of $10,000 on charges 3 and 4 manifestly excessive and not sufficiently calibrated to the appellant's ability to pay; accordingly the fines were reduced to $5,000 each and the default imprisonment terms were set at three months for each fine, each to be served consecutively to the 15-month imprisonment. The trial judge's ordering of default sentences was therefore corrected.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHEUNG YAT SING

HKSAR v. NGUYEN ANH CUONG

HKSAR v. FONG CHUN HEI, ERNIE

THE QUEEN v. YU WING-WUT

FUNG KA-SHING v. THE QUEEN