21 Dec 2022
香港特別行政區 訴 胡靜
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 3770
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA275/2022
申請人未能在期限內合理努力提出定罪上訴且逾期上訴成功機會極微，故拒絕逾期就定罪提出上訴的許可；就刑期，上訴人的刑罰並非明顯過重，原審以3個月為基準並在認罪下判處2個月及激活先前2個月緩刑之處理乃屬適當，故駁回上訴並維持原判。
Hong Kong Case Law
Execution of suspended sentence
5 Oct 2022
香港特別行政區 訴 鍾浩輝
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 3086
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA89/2022
The High Court upheld the magistrate's findings that the CCTV and complainant's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant deliberately curved his left elbow and struck the complainant's left breast, that the conduct was indecent and committed without consent, and that there were no mitigating special circumstances to avoid executing the prior suspended sentence; accordingly the conviction and the cumulative sentence were correct and not manifestly excessive.
21 Apr 2021
香港特別行政區 訴 LALCHANDANI, ALAN 李雅倫
- Citation
- [2021] HKCFI 1026
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA304/2020
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's sentencing exercise fell within reasonable bounds: given five lethal weapons stored at a non-residential address and distributed around a unit with many persons present, a 20-month starting point was justified; the 25% guilty-plea reduction was correctly limited by the late plea after failure to appear and re-arrest; activating the prior 4-month suspended sentence and ordering three months to run consecutively to the current 15-month sentence was a proper exercise of discretion, producing an effective 18-month sentence.
7 Jun 2018
香港特別行政區 訴 丁成業
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 1248
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA87/2018
The trial judge correctly found the police witnesses credible, the admissions and documentary records were voluntary and admissible, and the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the premises was a prostitution establishment and that the appellant exercised operational control; the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and the activation and consecutive execution of the suspended sentence was properly ordered, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
30 Dec 2016
香港特別行政區 訴 熊煒彬
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 熊煒彬
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA481/2016
The appellate court held that the magistrate's misdescription of dates did not render the sentencing exercise unlawful or the starting point manifestly wrong; given the facts (minor thefts for personal use due to hardship, absence of planning, and magistrate's acceptance of mitigation) the 6‑week starting point and concurrent execution were within lawful discretion. Under s109C(1) the suspended sentence may be activated but a court may substitute a shorter term where full execution would be disproportionate; therefore the suspended 8‑month term was ordered to be executed but replaced by a sho…
27 Apr 2016
香港特別行政區 訴 黃文廸
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 黃文廸
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA187/2016
上訴得直。裁判官在庭上未能清楚交代量刑起點及認罪扣減屬程序上之錯誤，但高院重訂量刑：採納6個月為起點，因認罪給予三分之一扣減降為4個月，並因受害人挑釁酌情減1個月為3個月；原緩刑中2星期監禁應與本案刑期同期執行，故最終總刑期為3個月。