Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention centre sentencing

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2013

HKSAR v. CHANG PO HON

Citation

HKSAR v. CHANG PO HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC65/2013

Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable: the identification evidence was of clothing description (not Turnbull identification), the alleged discrepancy about a yellow-green T-shirt was unsupported and unreliable, and the circumstantial evidence (presence in a nearby cubicle shortly after the robbery with the stolen handbag and scattered contents, matching clothing, and co-defendant taking money) gave rise to an irresistible inference of guilt.
2 Mar 2006

HKSAR v. HO, KIT-HO

Citation

HKSAR v. HO, KIT-HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA992/2005

The appellate court found the magistrate's credibility and identification findings were justified on the evidence; PW1's intoxication was insufficient to nullify his evidence; PW2's identification complied with Turnbull analysis and was reliable; the brief absence of the appellant was not a material irregularity affecting the verdict; and the detention centre sentence was within proper discretion and not so disparate as to require reduction. Accordingly the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
16 Dec 2005

HKSAR v. CHUNG TIN YAU AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG TIN YAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA926/2005

The magistrate properly assessed the credible identification evidence of the off-duty police officer, rejected the appellants' conflicting account for cogent reasons, and thus the convictions were supported by reliable evidence; the magistrate's decision to commit the first appellant to a Detention Centre for rehabilitation was within appropriate sentencing discretion, so both conviction and sentence are affirmed.
11 Dec 1993

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM CHIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA427/1993

Conviction appeal dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant would have pleaded guilty irrespective of the ICAC officer's statements (no true causal connection); sentence appeal allowed because the magistrate did not properly address deferment in light of the appellant's unfulfilled promise to give evidence, so the detention order was set aside and sentence deferred until after trial of co-accused with directions for re-sentencing.
18 Jun 1976

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YU HIN-LEUNG

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YU HIN-LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/1976

The magistrate's imposition of a training centre sentence on a person over 17 contravened section 33; the sentence was unlawful and must be corrected by substituting detention in a detention centre.
4 Jan 1973

YU TAK HO v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YU TAK HO v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC740/1972

The magistrate was justified in finding the statement voluntary and in admitting it because the arresting constable was credible, the alleged inconsistencies were not material, the presence of the appellant's mother and the circumstances showed the D.P.C. acted fairly, and any technical breach of the Judges' Rules did not warrant exclusion; accordingly the conviction and detention sentence were rightly upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHANG PO HON

HKSAR v. HO, KIT-HO

HKSAR v. CHUNG TIN YAU AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM CHIU

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YU HIN-LEUNG

YU TAK HO v. THE QUEEN