Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mitigating factors in sentencing

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2023

HKSAR v. LUI SAI YU

Citation

[2023] HKCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC61/2022

The Court accepted the short delay as excusable, held that the questions concerning the proper construction of NSL article 21 (whether the five‑year threshold is mandatory) and NSL article 33(1) (whether its three conditions are exhaustive or whether other mitigating factors may reduce a sentence below five years) are points of law of great and general importance, and granted a certificate under section 32(2) on those formulated questions for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.
27 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. TSANG KA MING

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG KA MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA307/2001

Given the appellant's pleaded guilt, positive character, employment prospects and rehabilitation activity, the dominant role of a co-offender, recovery of property, the short period already spent in custody (44 days), and low risk of re-offending, the appropriate and proportionate sentence was a community service order of 120 hours to be completed within 12 months rather than further imprisonment; seriousness of the offence did not mandate custody in these circumstances.
18 Jan 1991

THE QUEEN v. MAN KWONG FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MAN KWONG FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC349/1990

Given the applicants' ages, backgrounds, guilty pleas, supportive families, favourable training/detention centre reports and absence of weapons, the 5 year imprisonment sentences were excessive; the appeals are allowed, the imprisonment sentences quashed and each applicant ordered detained in a training centre as the appropriate rehabilitative disposal.
4 Jun 1987

THE QUEEN v. LEE WING FU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE WING FU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC182/1987

Manufacture of firearms falls within 'deal in' under the Ordinance; the defendant's admitted conduct fell within the top band of seriousness for s.14 offences; the sentencing judge appropriately took mitigating factors into account and the concurrent 7-year sentences (after a 25% discount from the 10-year maximum) were not manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
13 Jun 1986

THE QUEEN v. MARIE EDWARD CYRIL DURUP

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MARIE EDWARD CYRIL DURUP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/1986

The trial judge either overestimated the basic appropriate period or failed to give sufficient weight to strong mitigating factors; the offences are of sufficient gravity to require immediate custody but, after proper allowance for mitigation and guilty plea, the appropriate sentence is one year imprisonment and the Court of Appeal varied the original two‑year sentence to one year.
5 Jun 1972

SO YIU-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SO YIU-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC339/1972

The magistrate's sentences were manifestly excessive; having regard to the victim's conduct, lack of physical injury and the appellant's clear record the appropriate disposal was to quash the 12‑month sentences and substitute concurrent 6‑month sentences dating from conviction.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LUI SAI YU

HKSAR v. TSANG KA MING

THE QUEEN v. MAN KWONG FAI AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. LEE WING FU

THE QUEEN v. MARIE EDWARD CYRIL DURUP

SO YIU-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN