Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Probation reports

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. TSANG LOK FU & ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG LOK FU & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA944/2003

The appellate court upheld the Magistrate's factual findings on credibility and accepted the admissions and circumstantial evidence (possession of exact coins, presence and admissions) established participation and joint enterprise; accordingly convictions were safe and the appeals against conviction were dismissed, while sentencing was adjourned for probation reports to consider alternative disposals.
5 Jan 2001

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA809/2000

On the facts the three‑month custodial sentence for loitering causing concern under s160(3) was not excessive, but considering the appellant's family hardship, prior custody time and employment, the appropriate disposition was to suspend the three‑month term for three years so that it will be activated if he commits another offence within that period.
12 May 1995

R. v. WONG SHEUNG YU

Citation

R. v. WONG SHEUNG YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA161/1995

The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion after considering relevant reports and the seriousness of trafficking; probation was not recommended and there was no error of principle or reason to disturb the sentence to detention in a training centre, therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the sentence upheld.
5 Nov 1991

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG HAY DIN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG HAY DIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC623/1988

The Court held that suspended sentences for offences excepted under section 109B(1) (notably offences under s36 Cap 212) were unlawful; where suspension had been imposed for such offences the sentences were set aside and substituted by fines. The court found the original fines excessive on the material before it and reduced them, exercising leniency for Iris and adjusting fines and sentences for the applicants accordingly.
29 Jun 1990

THE QUEEN v. PHAM TUAN ANH AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. PHAM TUAN ANH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA326/1990

The magistrate's starting point of 18 months was excessive for two young appellants convicted of attempted theft with clear records; having regard to their ages, lack of aggravating features and time already spent in custody, the appropriate disposition was a reduced custodial sentence effectively commuted to time served, warranting immediate release.
25 Jan 1990

THE QUEEN v. VANEZZA R. RAMIREZ

Citation

THE QUEEN v. VANEZZA R. RAMIREZ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1490/1989

Where a sentencing magistrate has not complied with s.109A(1) in relation to a young offender, the appellate court should obtain the necessary information or remit the matter to the Magistrate's Court for re-sentencing after the required reports are obtained; failure to comply does not automatically invalidate the sentence but renders it open to review and correction by remission or reconsideration.
7 Nov 1989

THE QUEEN v. LAU SIU KUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU SIU KUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC340/1989

The Court held the Training Centre order was a proper and effective sentence for a 15‑year‑old who committed a serious robbery involving assault and subsequent fraudulent withdrawals, and the applicant's improved behaviour in the Centre did not provide a basis for overturning the sentence; continued detention until discharge by the Commissioner with subsequent supervision was appropriate.
8 Oct 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KAN-WA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KAN-WA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA838/1988

The appeal was allowed and the custodial sentence quashed because the appellant evidenced potential for rehabilitation (possession of methadone), had been out of trouble for a long time, and his poor physical condition made detention in a treatment centre a material issue; the proper course was to obtain a probation report assessing suitability for admission to a S.A.R.D.A. Centre rather than impose immediate imprisonment.
29 Sept 1988

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KIT SUM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KIT SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA523/1988

Given the aggravating facts elevating this assault beyond ordinary ABH, the magistrate acted within proper sentencing discretion in imposing Training Centre Orders supported by correctional service recommendations; the sentence was not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Aug 1988

THE QUEEN v. WONG KIN-WA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KIN-WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC149/1988

The court held that the sentencing judge placed excessive weight on the probation report and failed to give adequate weight to clinical psychological and psychiatric opinions, the applicant's clear prior record, his remorse, family support and low risk of repetition; given those factors and that the applicant had already served six months likely receiving proposed treatment, continued detention in a Training Centre would serve no useful purpose, so the detention order was set aside and the appeal allowed.