Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory life sentence

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. BUI VAN-CUONG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 367
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC180/2020

The Court held the trial judge's directions on provocation were adequate and the jury were sufficiently apprised of the defendant's background; mental illness cannot be treated as a characteristic attributable to the reasonable man for the objective limb of provocation unless the provocation was directed at that illness; the late psychiatric evidence was not credible in light of the remand history and would not have altered the verdict; therefore out‑of‑time leave was refused and the conviction upheld.
18 Jun 2020

NANCY ANN KISSEL v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 490
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2018

Section 8(c) of the Long‑term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance does not obligate the Board to fix or disclose a tariff or triggering period; fixing the punitive part is a judicial function, the Board must reassess sufficiency on each review by reference to current circumstances, and a failure to disclose a tariff/triggering period in an adverse decision does not breach natural justice provided adequate reasons are given.
17 May 2018

NANCY ANN KISSEL v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/2016

The Board was not required to demarcate or indicate a punitive tariff or a fixed 'triggering period' when declining to recommend substitution of a determinate sentence; as an executive review body it must assess each review afresh under s.8(c) of the Ordinance and the refusal to indicate a triggering period did not breach Article 80 of the Basic Law, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, or natural justice in the circumstances of this case.
24 May 2016

HKSAR v. TAHIR NAWAZ

Citation

HKSAR v. TAHIR NAWAZ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC484/2012

Leave to appeal against sentence out of time was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the 14-month delay and because the court had no power to substitute a determinate sentence for the mandatory life sentence imposed under s.2 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance; substitution is a matter for the Chief Executive on recommendation under Cap.524.
15 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. LAI KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC249/2013

The Court held that the individual items of circumstantial evidence, when assessed together, were of sufficient quality to permit a properly directed jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was the killer; accordingly the trial judge correctly refused the no case to answer submission, his reasons were adequate, no lies direction was required, nondisclosure was not materially prejudicial, and leave to appeal against conviction and against the mandatory life sentence was refused.
11 Sept 2008

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV27/2008

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed: mandatory life sentences as traditionally imposed are constitutionally valid and there is no requirement that a minimum term be fixed by a judge nor that the Review Board set or indicate a minimum term.
14 May 2008

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2006

The Court dismissed the application for leave because the legal questions relied upon were effectively determined by the Court of Final Appeal in Lau Cheong (as explained in paras 12–14), therefore no arguable question of sufficient general or public importance justified leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
7 Jan 2008

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2006

The mandatory life sentence regime as implemented in Hong Kong, coupled with the statute-based independent review by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board, is constitutionally valid; the Board's decision in 2004 not to recommend conversion was lawful and the applicant's procedural complaints fail because he did not request an oral hearing and challenges to convictions or retrospective application are matters for the courts, not the Board; the inadequate phrasing about the 'punitive part' did not warrant quashing because a subsequent 2006 review rectified the issue.
23 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. WONG TAT CHUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG TAT CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC509/1996

Where a statute prescribes a mandatory life sentence for murder, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal solely against sentence and an application for leave out of time to appeal the sentence is misconceived; an appeal against conviction provides the required review under BOR art 11(4).
3 May 2002

HKSAR v. LAU KWAI ON

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KWAI ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC67/2001

The conviction was upheld because the evidence was overwhelming (bloodstained clothing matching the deceased by DNA and admissions recorded in a signed post-record and on video) and the trial judge gave adequate directions to the jury; there were no arguable grounds of appeal and sentence is governed by mandatory life imprisonment under Cap. 212 s.2.