Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credit for time in custody

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. CHUNG KA LUN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 529
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC171/2016

In a conspiracy to traffic case that alleges an ongoing enterprise, the trial judge was entitled to omit the standard direction that possession of money must be shown to indicate continuing (not past) trafficking because such a direction would have been unnecessary and confusing; the tailored direction given was fair and did not render the conviction unsafe. On sentence, the judge lawfully took account of the duration, multiple transactions and the applicant's leading role so that a 15 year term was not manifestly excessive. The uncredited period of custody between 9 January 2013 and 8 March…
3 Dec 2013

HKSAR v. SHAIKH. NIZAMUDDIN

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAIKH. NIZAMUDDIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA658/2013

The magistrate correctly applied the Court of Appeal sentencing guideline (15 months tariff), properly allowed 9 days credit for immigration administrative detention, and there is no legal basis to credit unrelated remand time; accordingly the sentence of 14 months and 21 days imprisonment was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Nov 2010

HKSAR v. NAWAZ, AHMAD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. NAWAZ, AHMAD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA742/2010

The magistrate adopted the correct sentencing approach and allowed a one month discount for administrative custody; there was no evidence to justify any further discount, therefore each appeal is dismissed.
14 May 2004

HKSAR v. CHAN WANG KWOK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WANG KWOK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC39/2004

The Court held the trial judge did not err in taking a two‑year starting point and in the discounts applied (one‑third for plea plus reductions for staleness, clear record and prior custody); accordingly leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed and the 14‑month concurrent sentence upheld.
21 Jan 1999

HKSAR v. TAI YUK SHAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TAI YUK SHAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC566/1998

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the sentence was not excessive and was in fact lenient given the applicant's repeated unlawful entries and prior burglary; the trial judge correctly applied a starting point and allowed the full one-third discount for the guilty plea. Because the appeal grounds were devoid of merit, the period in custody pending appeal (about two months) should be disallowed from reckoning against the 33-month aggregate sentence.
9 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. HUANG CHIU-SING

Citation

HKSAR v. HUANG CHIU-SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC173/1998

The Court held the sentencing judge properly considered aggravating and mitigating factors including the applicant's age, guilty plea, surrender and prior convictions; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal was without merit; however the Court ordered that three months of time spent in custody awaiting the application shall not count towards the applicant's sentence.
17 Mar 1998

HKSAR v. SYED HASAN SEHARWERDY

Citation

HKSAR v. SYED HASAN SEHARWERDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA91/1998

The court held that although s.67A Cap.221 prevents automatic crediting of pre-charge custody, the sentencing court may reduce an imposed sentence to take account of such custody where failing to do so would be unjust; applying that principle the appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced by three months from nine to six months imprisonment.
14 Jul 1994

LAW YUI WO v. R.

Citation

LAW YUI WO v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC107/1994

The Court held that while the general position is that custody abroad pending extradition will not automatically be credited because the defendant may be the author of his own misfortune, where specific periods of detention abroad occurred through no fault of the defendant (here six weeks due to an administrative error), the sentencing court should exercise its discretion to give credit; accordingly the sentence was reduced by six weeks.
23 Oct 1991

THE QUEEN v. KIU KWOK KWONG, WALLACE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KIU KWOK KWONG, WALLACE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC205/1991

The trial judge lawfully exercised her discretion in awarding only six months' credit; the appellate court will not disturb that exercise because the judge considered the relevant factors, including some delay attributable to the applicant and some due to court inefficiency, and therefore was not plainly wrong.
28 Jun 1991

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG YUK SING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG YUK SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC566/1990

The offence, given 16.94g of morphine salts within a 28.01g mixture, fell within band (b) of Lau Tak Ming entitling a guideline minimum of 5 years, but the trial judge’s reduction to 3 years was a justified exercise of sentencing discretion on mitigating facts and will not be altered on appeal; additionally, 60 days of custody pending determination are to be excluded under s.83W CPO.