Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manifestly excessive

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. LUO ZHIHENG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 281
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC181/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the High Court concluded the sentencing judge adopted proper starting points for both offences, reasonably applied the combined approach and enhancements for aggravating features (offending while on bail, recent similar convictions, variety of drugs), and correctly applied the plea discount and totality principle; therefore the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
24 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. HUI KIN WA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 2001
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC167/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge did not misapply the authorities (notably Cheung King Kong); the difference in starting points was not material or demonstrably wrong in principle, the discretionary reductions (including for some personal consumption) were within judicial discretion, and any issue about concurrency of the trafficking charge did not render the sentence manifestly excessive.
28 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. WONG SZE TUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SZE TUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC19/2015

The judge's overall sentence of 4 years and 3 months was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle because the sentencing starting points based on quantity were appropriate, the judge permissibly allowed reductions for the guilty plea and partial personal use, and social trafficking does not automatically warrant a significant additional discount.
22 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. KWONG CHUN HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KWONG CHUN HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC273/2013

Enhancement for the international element must be proportionate and explained; given the quantity (97.16g) and absence of prior convictions, a 6‑month enhancement was appropriate (not 9); the proper starting point for possession of 2.10g was 15 months (not 24); substituted sentences follow and concurrency maintained.
23 Nov 2010

HKSAR v. HENDRIK WIJAYA OEI

Citation

HKSAR v. HENDRIK WIJAYA OEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC93/2008

The extension of time was refused because the 24-year sentence was within established sentencing guidelines given the quantity (3.93 kg) and the aggravating foreign element; the applicant's personal circumstances did not render the sentence manifestly excessive.
1 Apr 2010

HKSAR v. VAITHILINGAM SIVARAJ

Citation

HKSAR v. VAITHILINGAM SIVARAJ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC290/2009

The renewed application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the extension of time and, in any event, the sentence (40 months for wounding, 1 day concurrent for assault) was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; the Vice‑President's reasons were sufficient and supported.
18 Dec 2008

HKSAR v. KAO CHIEN KUO

Citation

HKSAR v. KAO CHIEN KUO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC419/2007

The judge correctly adopted the established tariff from AG v Ching Kwok Hung for trafficking in ice, applied an appropriate and substantial discount for the plea, and the mitigation put forward (debt origin, commendation letter, filial piety) did not render the sentence manifestly excessive; leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.
22 May 2008

HKSAR v. KAM KWAI JO JOEL

Citation

HKSAR v. KAM KWAI JO JOEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA169/2008

Because the magistrate correctly found the appellant threw the first punch and participated in a violent group attack, those facts were significant aggravating factors that rendered a 9-month sentence within the lawful sentencing discretion and not manifestly excessive; the appeal is dismissed.
16 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. LIU SHIQIONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU SHIQIONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC25/2004

Given the objective facts, the applicant's lack of remorse and previous related offending, the sentence of 3 years imprisonment was within proper judicial discretion and was not manifestly excessive; therefore the application to challenge sentence was dismissed.
30 Jun 2004

HKSAR v. PAU KWOK-WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. PAU KWOK-WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC174/2004

Leave to appeal out of time granted; the court found the four-year sentence in HCCC 241/2002 was not manifestly excessive but the aggregate sentence of seven years was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to a total of five years six months by ordering one year six months of the three-year four-month term in HCCC 239/2002 to run consecutively to the four-year term in HCCC 241/2002.