Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Prison overcrowding

  • 15 Aug 1990

    RE NG KIN HUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE NG KIN HUNG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR5/1990

    The Court upheld the basic sentencing approach that significant custodial terms (around 12–15 months) are appropriate for unlawful presence offences, rejected general mitigation based on alleged prior executive policy for persons who embarked after enforcement began, allowed some reviews to increase sentences (with standard appellate discounts) and dismissed other challenges; the Court applied existing guidelines and reserved argument on the propriety of appellate 'discounts' under s.81A C.P.O.

  • 15 Aug 1990

    RE LAU HO SUM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    RE LAU HO SUM AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR12/1990

    The Court reaffirmed that unlawful presence is principally a deterrence offence and that the 15‑month guideline remains appropriate for typical cases; mitigation for being 'lulled' into security by prosecutorial policy is limited to those actually in a position to have relied on that policy and not to persons who left after the policy change was publicised; youth and extreme youth/humanitarian factors can justify lower or suspended sentences in appropriate cases; accordingly the Court substituted increased sentences in several reviews and dismissed certain appeals while preserving the practic…

  • 15 Aug 1990

    RE SIU PUI CHUN

    Citation
    RE SIU PUI CHUN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR669/1990

    The Court reaffirmed the So Man King guideline that significant custodial sentences are appropriate for unlawful presence as a means of deterrence, rejected the contention that recent arrivals were entitled to mitigation as persons 'lulled' into security where they had no prior opportunity to offend under previous policy, upheld custodial sentences in most cases but allowed specified reductions/substitutions while reserving the question of the propriety of conventional appellate discounts under s.81A for further argument.