Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Plea of guilty discount

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2011

HKSAR V. TAI KAI CHEUNG

Citation

HKSAR V. TAI KAI CHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC350/2010

The court held the delay between arrest and charge was not excessive and did not warrant further reduction. The sentencing judge erred in principle by using the aggregate employer loss to set the starting point for each of the 16 fraud counts (global sentencing). The correct approach is to determine an appropriate sentence for each count and then apply the totality principle. The Court varied the sentences: set aside the sentences on Charges 1–16 and imposed 12 months imprisonment on each; ordered Charges 2–16 to run concurrently with one another but that 6 months of those sentences be consec…
3 Sept 2004

HKSAR v. QIU DONGQIU

Citation

HKSAR v. QIU DONGQIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA776/2004

Given the prosecution failed to provide sufficient factual particulars to prove the appellant used the forged identity card to seek employment, the court would not treat the offence as one warranting the higher sentencing range; where a defendant is lawfully present, possessed a forged identity card with intent to use it for employment and used it only to gain entry (without proof of use to seek work), an appropriate sentence on a guilty plea is six months imprisonment.
20 Jul 2004

YU FAI TAT v. HKSAR

Citation

YU FAI TAT v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2004

A further discount for an admission of obscenity beyond the usual discount for a plea of guilty should not be given as a general practice; the sentencing judge below was correct in principle to disallow an extra discount but erred in increasing the sentence without first giving the appellant an opportunity to address the proposed increase; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal and restored the magistrate's original sentence.
8 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. CHAN FAT CHE

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN FAT CHE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA386/2004

The appeal was allowed and the original eight month sentence set aside because the appellant provided useful assistance to the prosecution beyond a guilty plea, the respondent did not oppose immediate release, and the circumstances warranted an additional discount rendering continued imprisonment unjustified.
9 Mar 2001

HKSAR v. WONG HO FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HO FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA174/2001

The Magistrate lawfully exercised discretion to obtain and rely on pre-sentencing reports; the Detention Centre Order was within statutory power (Cap.239 s.4), consistent with established sentencing principles summarized in Choi Sai Lok, and was not manifestly excessive on the facts and reports; therefore the appeal against sentence fails.
27 Nov 1992

THE QUEEN v. WONG SUEN CHEONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG SUEN CHEONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA876/1992

The court held that, while operation of large-scale illegal gambling can merit immediate custody, the magistrate should have considered suspending custodial sentences for offenders who pleaded guilty and had clear or minor records; accordingly the imposed custodial sentences were suspended with conditions and fines in the cases before the court.
5 Jun 1990

THE QUEEN v. WONG KWAI PUI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KWAI PUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC522/1989

The Court held the offences were distinct and consecutive sentences were permissible but the trial judge failed adequately to apply the totality principle; the aggregate sentence of eleven years was excessive and was reduced to nine years by reducing the sentence on the firearm count from six to four years while leaving the other sentences intact.
6 Sept 1989

THE QUEEN v. LAM BUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM BUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC268/1989

The Court held that an 11-year sentence was excessive given the guilty plea, the absence of firearms or excessive physical violence, and comparative sentencing of co-defendants; the appropriate sentence on the facts was nine years and the appeal was allowed to reduce the sentence from 11 to 9 years.
16 Mar 1988

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI KIT WAI

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI KIT WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/1988

The Court held the judge below erred in principle by not applying this Court's authority that six years is the proper sentence for simple possession of a gun on a plea of guilty; the original concurrent sentences of two and a half years were manifestly inadequate and were varied to concurrent sentences of five years to reflect the proper starting point (six years) minus a customary discount for guilty plea.
24 Jan 1986

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG WAI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG WAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC437/1985

The trial judge did not misapply his sentencing discretion in reducing the sentence from 7 to 6 years; the plea of guilty did not warrant a larger discount on the facts; therefore leave to appeal is refused.