Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Newton enquiry

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ HONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1611
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC256/2021

Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the sentencing judge lawfully and reasonably exercised discretion in assessing seriousness, applying appropriate starting points, enhancing for multiple aggravating features, granting a modest discount for a late guilty plea, and imposing a consecutive element for totality; no Newton enquiry was required and no arguable ground of appeal arose.
17 May 2016

HKSAR v. ATIENZA RICHARD MONTENEGRO

Citation

HKSAR v. ATIENZA RICHARD MONTENEGRO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2016

The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentencing judge's adopted starting points and discounts (including a specific credit for partial restitution and a limited consecutive element for theft of the card) were within a proper range, the partial restitution had been accounted for, the applicant's new factual allegations were unsubstantiated and should have been advanced below, and there was no arguable basis to conclude the total sentence of two years was manifestly excessive.
9 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. LAM KHAMKHOON

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KHAMKHOON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/2014

The Court allowed the appeal, concluding the judge erred in not alerting defence counsel to his preliminary disinclination regarding the self‑consumption mitigation, and on resentencing adopted the judge's starting point of 7 years 3 months as within tariff discretion, applied a 10% discount for self‑consumption because the trafficking was commercial in nature and a substantial portion was for trafficking, then allowed a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in a substituted sentence of 52 months' imprisonment.
8 May 2014

HKSAR v. ARTURS LUDINS

Citation

HKSAR v. ARTURS LUDINS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC363/2013

Although the judge erred in conducting private internet research, that error caused no prejudice because the judge sentenced the applicant on the basis of seven forged credit cards with the remaining 61 cards treated only as aggravating; the total sentence of 3 years and 8 months was not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
11 Apr 2014

HKSAR v. SHAM KWOK KEE

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAM KWOK KEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2013

Given the totality of circumstances — an 8-year prosecutorial delay, the guilty plea entered after unsuccessful preliminary applications, and time wasted on contested issues including a Newton enquiry — the appropriate overall discount for the guilty plea on the money laundering count was about 20%; the Court therefore reduced the sentence on charge 2 from 4 years to 43 months and ordered it to run concurrently with the 3-month sentence on charge 1.
8 Apr 2013

HKSAR v. SHAM KWOK KEE

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAM KWOK KEE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC762/2012

On the totality of the evidence—large, structured cash and cheque transactions through four accounts, absence of corroborating commercial records, implausibility of the PLB explanation and the patterns shown in bank analyses—the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that HKD38,667,986.51 represented the proceeds of an indictable offence and therefore the money laundering charge was made out.
14 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. NGAI HO TING

Citation

HKSAR v. NGAI HO TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC417/2011

Where a defendant advances mitigation that is relevant to sentence and not inherently incredible, the sentencing judge is obliged, if provisionally not accepting that mitigation, to inform defence counsel so counsel may call evidence; failure to do so can vitiate sentence and justify allowing the appeal and re‑sentencing on the facts most favourable to the appellant.
30 Sept 2010

HKSAR v. YIU CHAN HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIU CHAN HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC462/2009

The court held that the trial judge’s 100% enhancement of the starting point for the possession offence was excessive and reduced the enhancement to 3 months (producing an 8‑month sentence on charge 1 after plea credit); the court also held no Newton enquiry was required because the agreed facts and circumstances allowed resolution of the self‑consumption issue, and adjusted concurrency to order 4 months concurrent on charge 1 resulting in a total sentence of 3 years 5 months imprisonment.
18 Feb 2009

HKSAR v. HO KOON HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KOON HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC86/2008

The appellants were properly found to have been jointly in charge of the vessel so a 5-year starting point per count was appropriate; the circumstances of concealment, poor safety equipment and lack of lights justified an 18-month uplift per count; but the judge erred in his approach to totality and in ordering consecutive sentences—sentences on the two counts should run concurrently resulting in an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 4 months imprisonment after discount for guilty pleas.
3 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. LAI KAM TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KAM TONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC338/2004

Surveillance and other evidence established planning and participation making the judge's starting points of 10 and 11 years not manifestly excessive; A1's asserted ignorance of a head‑bashing element was not credible given his involvement and prior sightings near the scene so no Newton enquiry was required; role as lookout warranted only a modest reduction; the large unrecovered sums and planning were relevant aggravating factors — appeal dismissed and sentences affirmed.