Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Remorse

  • 19 May 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 洪良

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 995
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC445/2025

    The trial judge correctly assessed credibility and mitigation, concluded remorse was not sufficiently demonstrated beyond what is reflected in guilty-plea credit, and reasonably selected a 4-year baseline for HK$3,000,000 with cross-border aggravation; applying one-third credit and a 20% prosecution uplift to 38 months was within proper sentencing discretion, so leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

  • 18 Jul 2018

    HKSAR v. JOHN WILMER GONZALEZ PINEDA

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 405
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC330/2017

    A failed section 16 discharge application is a considered challenge to the prosecution case that negates the defendant's first opportunity to plead guilty and justifies reduction of the one‑third guilty plea discount; the judge's reduction to about 20% was within a broad, fact‑sensitive range and did not amount to a miscarriage of sentencing discretion.

  • 8 Jun 2011

    HKSAR v. TSOGOO, Ariunsaikhan

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSOGOO, Ariunsaikhan
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA332/2011

    The Magistrate lawfully adopted a 12-month starting point for pickpocketing, applied a one-third guilty-plea discount and further mitigation for remorse and remand, producing a 7-month sentence which falls within the appropriate range given aggravating factors (vulnerable victim and multiple offenders); the sentence is not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 30 Aug 2010

    HKSAR v. YAU KIT KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YAU KIT KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC350/2009

    The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge, having heard the full contested evidence, reasonably concluded the applicant's sustained and deliberate strangulation, the broken thyroid cartilage, the absence of meaningful remorse and flight rendered the offence particularly grave and justified a 12-year sentence; customary ranges are not binding and no plea discount was required absent a formal guilty plea.

  • 23 Oct 2008

    HKSAR v. WONG CHI YU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG CHI YU
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA367/2008

    The appeal against conviction is dismissed as abandoned; the magistrate did not err in imposing imprisonment because the probation/community service report did not create an expectation of such an order and the appellant lacked genuine remorse and the offence was sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment; however, given the appellant's clear record and time already spent in custody, the custodial sentence of four months is suspended for two years.

  • 9 Nov 2007

    HKSAR v. LAU BO KI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAU BO KI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC412/2005

    The appellant's act of pouring concentrated sulphuric acid and leaving the frail elderly victim to die constituted extremely serious manslaughter; absence of remorse, aggravating conduct and culpability warranted a custodial sentence of 16 years.

  • 2 May 2007

    HKSAR v. CHAN HANG YUK

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN HANG YUK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC366/2005

    Leave to appeal was refused because the sentence of 10 years was within the permissible range given the serious aggravating features—incest of a very young child, abuse of parental trust, physical injury and evidence of attempts to prevent pregnancy—and the absence of remorse or plea mitigation; therefore the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

  • 9 Mar 2007

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING SUM AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING SUM AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC321/2006

    The court held that the probation/CSO reports did not justify a CSO, the first applicant's claimed relationship with the victim did not amount to a breach of trust warranting an increased starting point, and there was no justifiable distinction between the roles of the two co‑offenders; accordingly a three‑year starting point with the one‑third plea discount to 24 months was appropriate for both, quashing the first applicant's 26‑month sentence and substituting 24 months while dismissing the second applicant's appeal.

  • 20 Feb 2006

    HKSAR v. WAN KA KIT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WAN KA KIT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC298/2005

    Leave to appeal was granted but, treating the hearing as the appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal: although the sentencing judge erred in relying on untested co-defendants' post-trial remarks to label the applicant 'mastermind', the aggregate of factors—breach of trust, contested plea, role in taking and disposing of stolen property, limited remorse and rehabilitative prospects—justified the training centre order and community service was inappropriate for this serious burglary in the circumstances.

  • 3 Nov 2004

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PAO WAI HONG

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PAO WAI HONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR3/2004

    Although the fraud was serious and custodial sentences would normally be appropriate for senior public servants convicted after trial, the Court exercised its discretion under s81B to refuse to substitute immediate imprisonment because substantial restitution (including a further payment of interest) and other mitigating circumstances, taken together, justified maintaining the concurrent 12‑month sentences suspended for two years despite the lack of demonstrated remorse.