Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Consistency of sentencing

  • 26 Feb 2010

    HKSAR v. MOK YU WING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MOK YU WING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC269/2008

    The application for a certificate was dismissed because the Court held Tam Lok does not mandate identical sentences for all participants in a gang manslaughter; while sentencing must reflect common basic criminality with limited scope for differentiation, the Court below lawfully distinguished the 2nd Applicant's more active and weaponised role; there was no failure to apply relevant precedents and no question of great and general importance arose.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA57/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui Golden Mile the proper sentencing approach is to limit fines for first offenders to no more than $600, allow higher fines (commonly up to $1,000) for repeat offenders, and permit modest reductions (eg to $800) where the offender voluntarily discloses previous offending; charging should be consistent under the appropriate Hawker By-laws rather than Summary Offences simply to attract higher maximum penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA39/1989

    Court set and applied a sentencing policy: first offenders should not be fined above $600 absent special reasons; repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 or higher for persistent recalcitrance; magistrates may give modest credit for voluntary disclosure of prior offending; consistent charging under Hawker By‑laws is preferable to invoking the Summary Offences Ordinance for identical conduct.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA32/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Golden Mile the appellate court adopts a consistent sentencing policy: first offenders should normally be fined no more than HK$600; subsequent offences may attract fines up to HK$1,000 or higher for persistent recalcitrance; magistrates retain discretion and may give credit (eg reduction to HK$800) for voluntary disclosure of previous offences; charging should be consistent with the applicable hawker by‑laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid arbitrary elevation of penalties.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. LEE KAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEE KAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA52/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui 'Golden Mile' a first offender's fine should not exceed $600; subsequent offences may attract fines up to $1,000 or higher for persistent recalcitrance; honesty about prior offences justifies modest reductions (e.g. to $800); charging should be consistent under the Hawker By-laws rather than using the Summary Offences Ordinance to obtain higher penalties.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1706/1988

    For hawking obstruction by first offenders a fine of $600 is appropriate for consistency with prior appellate decisions; repeat offending committed shortly after conviction justifies upholding the higher fine; where obstruction is minimal (eg cul-de-sac) a lower fine (here $400) is appropriate.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1705/1988

    For hawking obstruction offences by first offenders a $1,000 fine is excessive; a fine of $600 is appropriate for first-time offenders as a matter of consistent sentencing; however, where offences are committed again shortly after conviction the higher fine should be maintained; minimal obstruction (cul-de-sac) justifies a further reduced fine of $400.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHUNG KAM CHEUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHUNG KAM CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1716/1988

    For first-time hawking obstruction offenders a fine of $600 is appropriate to ensure consistency with prior appellate decisions; appeals by defendants who reoffended within days of conviction are dismissed and the original $1,000 fines upheld; where the obstruction was minimal due to location (cul-de-sac) a lower fine of $400 is appropriate.