Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent v consecutive sentences

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. HOANG, THI PHUONG

Citation

HKSAR v. HOANG, THI PHUONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA396/2013

Because the forged Hong Kong identity card was used to obtain employment, the appropriate total sentence is higher than the baseline 15 months for mere remaining unlawfully; applying the totality principle the court reduced the cumulative consecutive 30 months to an overall concurrent sentence of 18 months by increasing the identity card offence to 18 months and making it run concurrently with 15 months for unlawful remaining.
14 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. FAN CHI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. FAN CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC398/2002

The Court refused leave to appeal against conviction because the jury were properly directed and there was no realistic evidential basis for an alternative simple possession verdict; the Court allowed the sentence appeal, holding the consecutive seven month term on the third count was manifestly excessive and should run concurrently with the six year sentence, reducing total detention to six years.
7 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. YAU WAI HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU WAI HANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC80/2001

The court held that the sentencing judge erred in taking the maximum as the starting point for charge 1; adjusted the starting points for each offence (charge1 15 months, charge2 24 months reduced to 2 years, charge3 30 months accepted), applied a one-third guilty plea discount, and imposed a combination of consecutive periods producing an aggregate effective sentence of 36 months because the offences were distinct and the offender's repeated sales justified partial consecutiveness; overall sentence must reflect both guideline tariffs and the totality principle.
29 Aug 2000

HKSAR v. YAU SAI HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU SAI HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA526/2000

Appeal on sentence allowed in part: because the claiming offence and the criminal damage formed part of the same incident the two terms of imprisonment should run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 2 months and 2 weeks.
1 Mar 1996

THE QUEEN v. LE DANG SON

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LE DANG SON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA82/1996

The original individual sentences were within the normal range and therefore legally proper; however the court exercised mercy by ordering that the sentences be served concurrently rather than consecutively.
17 Jun 1994

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FRANKIE NG TZE KIN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FRANKIE NG TZE KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/1994

The original concurrent sentences totalling 13 months were manifestly inadequate for planned, repeated thefts involving abuse of the respondent's position of trust; applying breach of trust sentencing factors and the totality principle the Court increased the sentence, allowing a review discount but imposing a heavier concurrent term to reflect total criminality.
10 Apr 1990

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWAI FUN AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWAI FUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR10/1989

The trial judge erred in principle by treating multiple distinct offences as a single transaction and by failing adequately to apply the totality principle and to reflect the seriousness of a prolonged, complex and large-scale fraudulent scheme; the Court of Appeal therefore varied sentences upwards for the principal defendants (D1, D2, D4 and D6) while leaving D7's suspended sentence undisturbed, and rejected reliance on material not placed before the sentencing basis for the defendants.
16 Mar 1978

MOK CHI-HING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

MOK CHI-HING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC123/1978

The court held the two-year sentence for possession was excessive in the circumstances and reduced it to one year, and ordered the two sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an aggregate sentence of one year.