Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loitering with intent

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHU HOI SHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU HOI SHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA700/2016

The appeal is allowed because the magistrate erred in adopting the statutory maximum as the starting point without notifying or inviting submissions from defence and failed to articulate and break down the aggravating enhancements; moreover the adopted starting point and resulting four-month sentence were manifestly excessive on the facts, therefore the sentences were set aside.
30 Mar 2012

香港特別行政區訴周炳坤

Citation

香港特別行政區訴周炳坤
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA431/2011

Having weighed the factual circumstances and offender's background, the court found no special circumstances to justify non-custodial disposal; appellant's demonstrated intent, lack of remorse and absence of mitigating factors warranted immediate imprisonment; a 4-week sentence was not excessive and was therefore upheld.
10 Nov 2010

HKSAR v. YEUNG KWAN HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG KWAN HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC217/2010

The Court reduced the loitering sentence to 2 months (starting point 3 months reduced by one-third) because the earlier 18‑month sentence exceeded the statutory context; reduced possession of Part I poison (zopiclone) to 2 months (starting point 3 months reduced by one-third) recognising low dependence risk and the applicant's psychiatric need; ordered the 2‑month poison sentence to run concurrently with the burglary-related term so that the overall effective sentence is 42 months; appeal allowed and sentence adjusted accordingly.
18 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. YANG XIANU

Citation

HKSAR v. YANG XIANU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA28/2006

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate must have relied on judicial notice of a particular deception modus operandi not placed before the court, that modus operandi was not shown to be of the kind the ordinary person would be presumed to know, and the magistrate failed to notify the defence that she might take judicial notice, depriving the defence of the opportunity to respond and rendering the conviction unsafe.
25 Jul 1996

R. v. WONG WAI

Citation

R. v. WONG WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA517/1996

The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in refusing an adjournment because the appellant's explanation for lack of representation was weak, the magistrate made enquiries and actively assisted the unrepresented appellant during the trial, the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, and there was no miscarriage of justice; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
29 Apr 1976

WONG MAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG MAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/1976

The appeal was allowed in part because the two offences were inextricably linked and should have attracted concurrent sentences; given the spread and relative lack of gravity of prior convictions, the sentences were reduced to 2 months and 4 months respectively to run concurrently.
12 Feb 1976

HUI CHI-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUI CHI-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC133/1976

The magistrate's imposition of nine months on the first charge was an obvious slip that exceeded the statutory maximum of three months for that offence; the proper corrective exercise is to reallocate the sentences so that the first charge is three months and the second nine months, with both sentences to run concurrently, thereby giving effect to the magistrate's evident intention within statutory limits.
29 Aug 1975

LAI MING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAI MING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC697/1975

The conviction was quashed because the prosecution failed to prove facts sufficient to bring the appellant within the legal category of a 'suspected person'; the officers' statement of suspicion alone was legally insufficient and the proviso could not cure the evidential deficiency.
25 Jul 1974

KWOK YIP SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

KWOK YIP SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC431/1974

The magistrate failed to comply with s.109C(1) by not giving reasons for varying suspended sentences; therefore the court must order that the suspended sentences imposed on 26 May 1973 take effect with their original terms unaltered under s.109C(1)(a). Possession of equipment for stealing is a separate offence capable of attracting the higher maximum sentence; however, because the magistrate's sentencing was influenced by the wrongful variation, the sentence for the new charge of going equipped for stealing is reduced from seven to six months so the total imprisonment remains twelve months.
12 Feb 1974

WONG CHI-MING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG CHI-MING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC931/1973

The razor-blade was an item deliberately adapted for theft, making 'going equipped for stealing' the principal offence; because sentences must reflect the specific facts and deterrence needs, the twelve-month sentence was not excessive and is therefore affirmed.