Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Plea

  • 11 Jul 2013

    HKSAR v. WANG WEILIE

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WANG WEILIE <br>
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC478/2011

    Locality of the act causing death is a jurisdictional matter, not an essential element of murder; where counsel expressly concedes jurisdiction and the evidence and plea support that the fatal act occurred within Hong Kong, the judge is not required to leave jurisdiction as a live issue to the jury, and no miscarriage of justice arose from declining to do so; application to appeal was dismissed.

  • 7 Nov 2008

    HKSAR v. KUO YAO CHUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. KUO YAO CHUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC70/2008

    Personal hardship, first-offender status and transit intent do not mitigate sentence where substantial quantities of drugs are involved; the trial judge correctly applied the established starting point and reduced sentence for guilty pleas, so leave to appeal is refused.

  • 30 Apr 2008

    HKSAR v. LAM CHOR KAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAM CHOR KAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1222/2007

    The appellate court accepted the Chinese two-way permit as sufficiently reliable evidence that the appellant entered lawfully in 2003 and was an over-stayer; the guilty plea remained valid; applying the sentencing guidelines for over-stayers the court reduced the sentence for unlawful remaining from 15 months to 9 months and dismissed the challenge to the conviction.

  • 28 Sept 2004

    HKSAR v. HSU, EDMOND YIK MAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HSU, EDMOND YIK MAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA871/2004

    The costs order was quashed because the magistrate (and authorities) established that costs orders must be just and reasonable and normally only imposed in exceptional circumstances; here the appellant pleaded guilty early, did not cause extra prosecution expense and there was insufficient basis to treat the costs as anything other than additional punishment.

  • 30 Aug 2001

    HKSAR v. LI CHI WAH

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LI CHI WAH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA738/2001

    The appeal was dismissed because the transcript established unequivocal guilty pleas and admissions of fact to both thefts, and the learned Magistrate lawfully exercised power under s45(1) Mental Health Ordinance to impose a three-month hospital order based on psychiatric evidence and the appellant's need for treatment; a plea cannot be retracted simply because the appellant preferred a different hospital.

  • 27 Nov 1992

    THE QUEEN v. NGUYEN MANH-HUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. NGUYEN MANH-HUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC314/1992

    Given the large quantity of herbal cannabis seized, a substantial sentence was appropriate; the deputy judge lawfully reduced the sentence from what might otherwise be imposed because of early confession, guilty plea, lack of intention to distribute in Hong Kong and lower potency of herbal cannabis; family hardship did not amount to sufficient mitigation to render the sentence manifestly excessive, therefore the 5‑year sentence was affirmed.

  • 3 Aug 1984

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWAI LOK

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWAI LOK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC408/1984

    The court held that section 19(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance does not oust the inherent discretion of a court of summary jurisdiction to grant leave to an informant to withdraw a charge or information prior to a plea being taken; English authority and established practice support that withdrawal of process before the inquiry permits such a discretion.

  • 25 May 1979

    SIN YIU-KONG v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    SIN YIU-KONG v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC416/1979

    Paid fixed penalty notices, in the absence of withdrawal, do not constitute convictions or offenses for sentencing purposes and the magistrate erred in taking them into account; furthermore the imposition of disqualification for stopping to pick up a single passenger without causing obstruction was disproportionate, so the disqualification was discharged and the fine reduced to $200.

  • 23 Jun 1978

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHIU KAM-HUNG

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHIU KAM-HUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC503/1978

    The court held the magistrate was not wrong to decline to take a plea until particulars of the traffic sign were provided and to refuse an adjournment where the prosecution could not supply particulars without unfair delay; the Fixed Penalty Ordinance does not restrict the court's sentencing discretion and the reference to it in the information was irrelevant, so the appeal was dismissed.

  • 4 Dec 1968

    KEI CHI KONG v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    KEI CHI KONG v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC642/1968

    Because the charge was ambiguous and failed to give the necessary particulars, the appellant was not properly informed and his guilty plea could not stand; admissions in the brief facts did not cure the defective particulars, so the proper remedy was to set aside the conviction and sentence and remit the case with amended particulars to the magistrate.