Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credit for foreign custody

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. LAW PIT TAT

Citation

[2021] HKCA 295
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC70/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied the applicable guidelines for theft involving breach of trust, appropriately assessed aggravating factors (premeditation, multiplicity, breach of trust), granted the proper discount for an early guilty plea, had lawful discretion to refuse credit for foreign custody and recovery of goods, and did not err in imposing a total sentence of 7 years as not manifestly excessive.
22 Jan 2018

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CURTIS KA KIM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 40
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC141/2017

The Court held the starting point of 13 years and the resulting sentence of 8½ years after plea and limited credit for foreign custody was not manifestly excessive: the applicant executed a calculated multi‑victim investment fraud causing catastrophic loss, resisted extradition (thus limited foreign‑custody credit), and the victim impact evidence was not challenged; appeal dismissed.
21 Jul 1993

R. v. PAU CHENG NA YUET

Citation

R. v. PAU CHENG NA YUET
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC496/1992

The Court refused leave to appeal and held the trial judge did not err: the 7-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's central organising role in a prolonged, well-planned kidnapping for ransom; time spent in foreign custody resisting extradition is relevant but not necessarily fully creditable; differences in co-conspirators' sentences were justifiable by differing roles and culpability.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAW PIT TAT

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CURTIS KA KIM

R. v. PAU CHENG NA YUET