Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Deterrence policy

  • 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. HO PAK KUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HO PAK KUI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA33/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Golden Mile area the court establishes a sentencing policy: first offenders should not be fined more than $600 absent special aggravation, repeat offenders may be fined up to $1,000 or more for recalcitrance, and magistrates may apply a localized deterrent element but must strive for consistency and charge under the appropriate by‑laws.

  • 31 Jan 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA53/1989

    For hawking obstruction offences in the Tsimshatsui area, first offenders should generally be fined no more than HKD 600; subsequent offences may attract fines up to HKD 1,000 or higher for persistent recidivists; magistrates should apply this tariff consistently and may give mitigation (to HKD 800) where the offender voluntarily discloses prior offences; charging should normally be under the Hawker By-laws rather than the Summary Offences Ordinance to avoid inconsistent application of penalties.