Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-sentencing reports

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2021

律政司司長訴 CWC

Citation

[2021] HKCA 166
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/2020

The original sentencing was legally erroneous and manifestly inadequate because the judge failed to obtain reports necessary to consider custodial options and misassessed culpability and risk; Court of Appeal quashed the reformative order and re-sentenced the juvenile to custody at a training centre as the only proportionate and appropriate disposition given the gravity, premeditation and public order context.
4 Apr 2018

香港特別行政區訴李榮光

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA107/2018

The reformatory order was a lawful and appropriate sentence because the sentencing judge properly considered the seriousness of the assault, the appellant's youth and extensive prior record, and relied on contemporaneous reports that alternatives (reformative or detention orders) were unsuitable; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and complied with the principles in Wong Chun Cheong.
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.

Hong Kong Case Law

律政司司長 訴 CWC

香港特別行政區 訴 李榮光

HKSAR v. WONG HO FAI

律政司司長訴 CWC

香港特別行政區訴李榮光