Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Imprisonment

  • 2 Mar 2015

    HAO XIAOYING v. WONG YIU LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HAO XIAOYING v. WONG YIU LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1968/2014

    Persistent non‑compliance with the court's order and aggravating features justify a custodial sentence for the 1st defendant (W Wong) of four months, subject to being purged, and fines of HK$150,000 each for the 2nd and 3rd defendants (Huang and Lau) because the contempt involved a large sum and there was no suggestion of financial difficulty, so fines must serve as real punishment and deterrence.

  • 27 Oct 2010

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YUEN OI YEE LISA

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YUEN OI YEE LISA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2390/2008

    Respondent's conduct was intentional, repeated and contumacious in breaching orders and interfering with the administration of justice; suspension was inappropriate because it would not secure compliance and respondent showed no genuine remorse; immediate custodial sentences were therefore necessary and should be served concurrently; costs awarded on indemnity basis.

  • 20 Feb 2006

    HKSAR v. LI CHAU WING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LI CHAU WING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC347/2005

    The appropriate sentence was a substituted custodial term of 5 months imprisonment; notwithstanding time already spent in custody the court upheld a two-year driving disqualification because the offence was among the most serious, the applicant had a prior careless driving conviction, and public protection required that period of disqualification.

  • 3 Jun 2004

    HKSAR v. TSE WAI LUN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSE WAI LUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA401/2004

    The Magistrate did not misapply sentencing principles or attach undue weight to relevant aggravating factors (high breath alcohol reading and prior offending); given the extent of intoxication and failure of prior non-custodial measures to deter, an immediate custodial sentence of 3 months was within the proper exercise of discretion and was not manifestly excessive.

  • 28 May 1998

    HKSAR v. Mok Key Wah

    Citation
    HKSAR v. Mok Key Wah
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA265/1998

    Given the appellant's record and the seriousness of the offences the fines of HK$20,000 per count were appropriate and not manifestly excessive; however the Magistrate exceeded power by ordering fines paid out of bail without consent, so fines are upheld but the bail payment order is rescinded and bail reinstated with an order that the appellant pay the fines within three months of release.

  • 9 Sept 1985

    THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM LUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM LUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA713/1985

    Although 9 months' imprisonment might be appropriate where aggravating factors exist, the combination of a 9-month term with a $5,000 fine (equivalent to two months' salary) made the total sentence disproportionate in the appellant's circumstances (low earnings, no relevant convictions, admissions); accordingly the imprisonment term was reduced to 6 months while the fine was upheld.

  • 29 Jun 1981

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAW YING CHEUNG

    Citation
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAW YING CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR8/1981

    Where a defendant commits a violent robbery while on bail awaiting trial for another offence, indicating a hardened disposition rather than a transient lapse, the court must prioritize public protection and deterrence over sole focus on rehabilitation; robbery is excepted from s.109A and a substantial term of imprisonment (four years substituted here) is appropriate; detention centre order set aside as inappropriate.

  • 21 Mar 1980

    YEUNG TAK-SHING v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    YEUNG TAK-SHING v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC217/1980

    The Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order was inappropriate because it would only commence after the appellant completed an existing eighteen month imprisonment; the appropriate disposition was to set aside the Treatment Centre order and substitute one year imprisonment to run concurrently with the existing sentence.

  • 1 Oct 1977

    YIP SIU-TUNG v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    YIP SIU-TUNG v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1028/1977

    The detention centre order was inappropriate for a mature 22‑year‑old who held a knife to the victim's throat during a robbery; absent exceptional circumstances the proper punishment is imprisonment, and accordingly the detention order was set aside and two years' imprisonment imposed (the maximum available on appeal from a magistrate).

  • 4 Jul 1970

    CHAN WOO LAI SHEUNG v. CHAN KEONG

    Citation
    CHAN WOO LAI SHEUNG v. CHAN KEONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC58/1970

    The court held that the respondent's persistent drug addiction combined with refusal of sexual intercourse, absence of maintenance, a prior assault, repeated imprisonments and the petitioner's reasonable apprehension for her health constituted cruelty; those facts also made cohabitation virtually impossible and amounted to constructive desertion, justifying a decree nisi.