Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrency vs consecutiveness

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. GUAN LIQING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. GUAN LIQING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC148/2005

The appellate court held that the partially consecutive 9-month term imposed on the conspiracy count (charge 3) was inappropriate because the conspiracy encompassed the date of the substantive offence in charge 2, so the sentences on charges 2 and 3 should run concurrently; accordingly D4's total sentence is reduced to five years. Appeals by D1 and D2 were dismissed as without merit.
7 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. LAI MEI YUK CANDY

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI MEI YUK CANDY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC427/2003

The Court granted the appeal in part, holding that full restitution is a material mitigating factor warranting a further reduction of sentence; it effected a six‑month discount by ordering certain sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively, resulting in an adjusted total term of two years imprisonment.
25 Sept 2003

HKSAR v. YAU HOK KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU HOK KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC115/2003

The court admitted the new pre‑sentence evidence under s83V CPrO, treated the applicant's life‑saving act as a significant mitigating factor, reduced the robbery sentence from 4 years 8 months to 4 years 6 months, and ordered the 12‑month 'going equipped' sentence to run wholly concurrently, producing an overall reduction of six months.
29 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. IJO TJIM KIEK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. IJO TJIM KIEK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC164/2002

The appeal court held that D2’s substantial assistance after sentence justified increasing his discount and directing that the sentences for the counts arising from the same journey run concurrently; D1’s appeal was dismissed because no material new mitigation was shown to reduce his sentence.
20 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. NGUYEN VAN LY

Citation

HKSAR v. NGUYEN VAN LY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA484/1999

The Court found the Magistrate erred in treating the appellant's clear record and his wife's pregnancy as mitigating factors for unlawful entry; applied precedent to adopt a 15‑month sentence for the immigration offence, upheld 1 month for theft, ordered the sentences to run consecutively, and substituted the total term to 16 months imprisonment.
9 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. LAI YUN CHEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI YUN CHEONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC45/1998

The Court held the trial judge did not err: a three-year starting point per handling offence was not inappropriate on the authorities; the 50% enhancement under s.27 was justified by the organised syndicated car theft and smuggling and the applicant's role was not purely ministerial; the aggregate sentence of six years was within permissible limits; leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
29 Nov 1996

R. v. LEUNG KWAN HUNG and Another

Citation

R. v. LEUNG KWAN HUNG and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC578/1995

The trial judge's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were within his province and not vitiated by legal error; his questioning of witnesses was proper clarification not improper participation; the incidents were separate so consecutive sentencing was lawful; therefore leave to appeal convictions and the sentence appeals are dismissed.
16 Jul 1996

THE QUEEN v. WONG TO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG TO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC202/1996

The Court held the five-year starting point for robbery was appropriate given the weapon and fear caused but found the trial judge underweighted exceptional mitigation (surrender, likely non-identification, true remorse) and so increased the guilty-plea discount by six months, reducing the robbery sentence from 3 years 3 months to 2 years 10 months and the total sentence to 3 years 1 month; the Court affirmed that concurrency for unlawful remaining is not automatic and depends on totality.
9 Nov 1981

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HO WING-HO

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HO WING-HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/1981

The court applied the sentencing guidelines from Mo Kwong‑sang and the concurrency principles from Yim Yee‑kwong, increased selected individual terms for burglary, rape and aggravated burglary, ordered specified sentences to run consecutively and others concurrently, and after applying a two‑year review allowance determined that an overall effective sentence of eight years was appropriate.