Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fines

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴葉逸熙

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3589
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA19/2024

The court, applying the rehearing standard, found the magistrate's sentence of HK$6,000 per summons (nine summonses) to be within the statutory range and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of multiple speeding-related failures to provide driver information and the fact the appellant pleaded late; the court upheld the fines but adjusted the installment timetable to start 1 January 2026 to account for the appellant's remand in another matter.
9 Jan 2024

香港特別行政區訴倪福臨

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 57
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA306/2022

The appellate court dismissed the sentence appeal: although the magistrate erred by not inquiring into the appellant's means before imposing a fine, the sentence as a whole (HK$4,000 fine, 8 months driving disqualification, and requirement to attend a driving improvement course) was not manifestly excessive given the appellant's driving record and the need for deterrence; the appellant's ability to pay was evidenced by subsequent payment under instalments, so no reduction was warranted.
8 Jan 2020

張月清 v. TSUI YIU HEI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP845/2019

Two contempts were proved and the defendant, aware of the injunction, acted in a manner the court found wilful and contumelious; purging was incomplete and there was real risk of further contravention given ongoing Mainland matters, so a custodial sentence was warranted to punish and deter but, weighing mitigation (age, health, apology) and practicalities, immediate custody was suspended for a definite period and combined with a fine to reflect punishment and deterrence.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YUNG YIU SING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2925/2015

The judge assessed each respondent's culpability and personal circumstances, imposing suspended custodial sentences combined with fines for those whose role was limited, immediate custodial sentence for the respondent with extensive active involvement, and awarding costs to the applicant on an indemnity basis; suspension periods and fine payment windows were set to reflect mitigation and deterrence.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN JEFFREY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2921/2015

The court imposed sentences by calibrating starting points according to the extent of each respondent's involvement and whether they were convicted after trial, applying suspended custodial sentences combined with fines for limited roles while imposing immediate imprisonment where involvement was deep and extensive (Lou Tit Man). Personal mitigation (age, record, mental and financial circumstances) reduced sentences in specific cases.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WING WAH

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2930/2015

The court assessed each respondent’s culpability, absence of violence, personal circumstances and whether convicted after trial to calibrate penalties; limited roles merited suspended custodial terms combined with fines while deeper, active involvement warranted immediate imprisonment; costs awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis with certificate for three counsel.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN JEFFREY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP575/2018

Sentences were determined by assessing each respondent's role, conduct and personal circumstances: minor and non-violent participation merited suspended custodial sentences of one month or six weeks combined with fines (or no fine where personal circumstances dictated), whereas extensive, active involvement combined with conviction after trial justified immediate custody (four months for Lou Tit Man); costs awarded to the applicant including indemnity basis with certificate for three counsel and taxation of respondents' own costs except as specified.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU SUI YING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2924/2015

The court assessed each respondent individually, matching punishment to the extent of participation: limited roles merited fines and short suspended custodial terms (or no fine) while active, sustained participation warranted immediate imprisonment (four months for Lou Tit Man). Conviction after trial increased sentence severity. Costs were ordered to the applicant on an indemnity basis with specified counsel certificate.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW WAI YAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2920/2015

Sentences were determined by assessing each respondent’s level of participation and personal circumstances: minor roles merited fines and suspended short custodial terms (commonly 1 month suspended or 6 weeks suspended) while extensive, deliberate participation warranted immediate imprisonment (four months for Lou Tit Man); costs awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis with certificate for three counsel.
26 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAI YU SING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2919/2015

For respondents whose participation was limited to presence or non-violent, non-organisational acts the court imposed suspended custodial sentences with fines or no fine depending on personal circumstances; for a respondent whose involvement was extensive and active (Lou Tit Man) immediate imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting proportionality between culpability and sentence.