Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remission of sentence

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2024

MA CHUN MAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3531
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL979/2024

The amendments (PRSPO s6(3A) and PR r69(1A)) imposing an 'NS test' for remission/referral are lawful and sufficiently certain; the Commissioner's non-referral pursuant to s6(3A) does not amount to additional punishment nor breach retrospectivity; the NS test is a holistic evaluative predictive assessment (no evidentiary burden on prisoner) and national security is the paramount consideration; procedural challenge succeeded only insofar as leave to argue procedural unfairness was granted, but on the facts the Commissioner's process (opportunity to make written representations, provision of Sum…
31 Oct 2023

FU MAN KIT v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 33
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV300/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the issue was essentially academic (the applicant had already served the remaining term), the proposed constitutional point was not raised below and lacked evidential foundation (Flywin bar), and the 31 day minimum in Rule 69(1) is a lawfully established limit whose operation in conjunction with CPO s67A does not, on the material before the court, amount to an arguable arbitrariness under Article 5.
4 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. THAPA PREMKALA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2021

Because there was a substantial risk that a substantial part or all of the 12‑month sentence would be served before the appeal could be heard and because the appeal had at least a reasonable prospect of success given the potential irregularity concerning treatment of failure to testify and good character, the court granted bail pending appeal and ordered a transcript of the magistrate's verdict.
31 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. SIU SIK KWAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 463
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/2007

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay (having voluntarily absconded from trial) and the underlying grounds of appeal lacked merit; the sentencing judge's approach and reasoning were unimpeachable.
3 Sept 2019

FU MAN KIT v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1640/2018

Section 67A must be read as treating remand as time served so remission is to be calculated on the sentence including the period taken into account under s67A; Rule 69's 31‑day provision is directed to preventing remission for very short actual terms and does not require a prisoner who has already served sufficient remand time to serve an additional 31 days after sentence; therefore applicant who had served remand in excess of the nett custodial requirement was to be released forthwith.
26 Apr 2013

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1201/2008

Habeas corpus leave dismissed as moot/unarguable after appellate increase of sentence; leave to apply for judicial review refused in respect of historical disciplinary decisions for want of reasonable grounds, as abuse of process or because applications were time‑barred and delay unjustified; limited leave granted only in relation to specific recent disciplinary decisions (late July to mid September 2012, ref nos 80–83) on an arguable ground that Hall was deprived of legal representation and the hearings may have been unfair; allegations of systemic structural independence breach and re‑litig…
23 Aug 2010

NG KING TAT PHILIP v. POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION BOARD

Citation

NG KING TAT PHILIP v. POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/2010

On a purposive construction of Cap 475 in its statutory and legislative context the Post-Release Supervision of Prisoners Ordinance applies to transferred prisoners; the Board lawfully made the supervision order and the challenged conditions are rationally connected to legitimate aims of rehabilitation and public protection and are proportionate, therefore the judicial review is dismissed.
31 Aug 2009

WONG TAK WAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

WONG TAK WAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL64/2008

Proceedings for prison disciplinary offences that impose forfeiture of remission amount to determination of a criminal charge engaging Article 10 HKBOR; a Superintendent who administers the prison and/or supervises the reporting officer lacks sufficient independence and impartiality and an outside Superintendent should hear such cases; where forfeiture of remission is at stake the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applies; accordingly the disciplinary convictions and punishments in the five cases were quashed.
14 Oct 2008

LAI HIN CHEONG v. LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

Citation

LAI HIN CHEONG v. LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/2008

The Board's decision was quashed because it applied or at least gave an impression of applying an impermissible 'special reason' threshold inconsistent with LTPSRO s.8, breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose materials that it had considered and by failing to give adequate reasons for a decision affecting liberty, and thereby failed to take into account relevant statutory factors; the decision must be remitted for reconsideration.
21 Jul 2000

LUI TAT HANG LOUIS v. THE POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUI TAT HANG LOUIS v. THE POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL154/1999

The Court held that the Post-Release Supervision scheme is essentially rehabilitative and preventive rather than a penalty for the original offence; supervision conditions and powers of recall do not constitute a heavier penalty within the meaning of Article 15 ICCPR/Article 12 Bill of Rights Ordinance, and the Ordinance is not in breach of Basic Law Article 39; therefore the application is dismissed.