Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dangerous drugs ordinance

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. DANG HUNG NGOC

Citation

[2023] HKCA 103
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC217/2019

Appeals dismissed; (1) partially consecutive sentences were permissible because trafficking and cultivation were distinct offences generating additional culpability; (2) scientific evidence demonstrates substantial increase in THC potency such that herbal cannabis and cannabis resin should be treated similarly for sentencing purposes; (3) sentencing guidelines revised: trafficking bands expanded upward and cultivation sentencing to be based on estimated annual yield with specified bands; trial judge's starting points and discounts were within lawful range and sentences are upheld.
26 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. TARVEEN ROHIT ROY R T PRAKASH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1595
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC131/2020

The judge's starting point and enhancement for international trafficking were appropriate; the judge lawfully reduced the guilty plea discount because the applicant caused substantial wasted court time pursuing and then abandoning an application to reverse plea, and permissibly awarded a further 10% for limited participation in a controlled delivery. The combined 27% discount produced a sentence that was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, so leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
14 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. UBAH JOEL CHIDIEBERE

Citation

HKSAR v. UBAH JOEL CHIDIEBERE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC193/2016

Extension of time granted because the ground of appeal was belatedly brought to applicant's attention; enhancement for international element reduced to one year in accordance with Chung Ping Kun guideline (final starting point 18 years 6 months, reduced by one third to 12 years 4 months); forfeiture of US$4,000 and LG phone upheld not under the judge's rejected reward finding but under s56(1)(a) because applicant used the money to facilitate entry into Hong Kong and thereby the commission or connection with the Cap 134 offence.
25 Nov 2016

HKSAR v. NG CHUN WING

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUN WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/2015

The Court held the evidence (rent payments, receipt of payments, landlady's statements, possession of keys, CCTV/monitor and police testimony) supported the finding that the applicant was the person in charge who permitted storage and had knowledge of the drugs; the trial judge's incorrect direction requiring proof of possession for Count 2 was favourable to the applicant and caused no prejudice; CCTV concerns were resolved by available audio and photographic evidence; the renewal application was without merit and leave was refused; the Court ordered six weeks loss of custody time under s83W(…
22 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. MENDOZA BOLANOS EDGAR ANTONIO

Citation

HKSAR v. MENDOZA BOLANOS EDGAR ANTONIO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2015

The application was dismissed because the claim of duress lacked evidential support and the sentencing judge correctly applied established guidelines (HKSAR v Abdallah) to fix the starting point and properly enhanced the sentence for international importation; the overall sentence was within permissible range and not manifestly excessive.
5 May 2016

HKSAR v. AKINYI GRACE SYLVIA

Citation

HKSAR v. AKINYI GRACE SYLVIA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC324/2015

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the applicant misinterpreted 'SEM' in Lau Tak Ming (which denoted a mixture purity category) as coextensive with the statutory chemical description 'salts of esters of morphine'; the admitted facts permitted aggregation of the separate quantities for sentencing; the delay was substantial and unjustified; and post-conviction assistance is an executive matter not warranting appellate intervention.
18 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. LEUNG KA KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KA KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1731/2014

Bail must be granted because the magistrate withdrew previously granted bail without giving any reasons and there was no prosecution objection; the arbitrary remand was an abuse of judicial power and the defendant's liberty must be restored on the existing $500 cash deposit.
3 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. HO WAI YEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. HO WAI YEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC116/2014

Application dismissed because the applicant, through counsel and with his authority, did not persist in opposing the forfeiture and the record and admitted facts linked the cash to the drug trafficking offence under s56(1)(b) DDO, so the forfeiture order had no arguable merit.
23 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. YAU KA MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU KA MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC144/2013

The Court held the judge erred in fixing an unexplained overall starting point of 13–14½ years. Properly aggregating the methamphetamine and cocaine (totality) and adding a modest uplift for 27.42g herbal cannabis and the applicant's bad record produced an overall starting point of 9 years; after a one‑third guilty plea discount the appropriate total sentence is 6 years. The full consecutive order was quashed and substituted with an order that 1 year of the Count 1 sentence be consecutive to Count 2, producing a total effective sentence of 6 years.
26 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. ONUMEME OKECHUKWU

Citation

HKSAR v. ONUMEME OKECHUKWU<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC41/2012

The Court found no arguable merit: the trial judge's summing up adequately addressed the defence evidence and properly directed the jury as to their role; the CCTV evidence no longer exists and Customs deny seizure of any permit; the matters complained of were not raised at trial when the applicant had representation; therefore there is no basis to grant leave to appeal against conviction.