13 Mar 2013
香港特別行政區 訴 阮文成
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 阮文成
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA827/2012
法院裁定：累犯因素可提高量刑起點以達致阻嚇和保護公眾，但提高幅度必須與現案相稱；原審已以12個月為基礎且該基礎已包含重犯因素，裁判官再將其增加50%屬過重；考慮被告認罪應予減刑4個月，故將刑期由12個月改判為8個月監禁。
Hong Kong Case Law
Repeat offenders
20 Oct 2006
HKSAR v. CHEUNG MAN LAI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHEUNG MAN LAI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA839/2006
Although the 12-month sentence was extremely lenient given the normal 15-month tariff and the appellant's history of repeat offending, the appellate court declined to exercise its power to increase the sentence and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the 12-month sentence.
5 Dec 2001
HKSAR v. PHAM NGOC HUE
- Citation
- HKSAR v. PHAM NGOC HUE
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA874/2001
The magistrate was entitled to impose partly consecutive sentences because entering in breach of a deportation order is a separate offence from illegal entry; the individual sentences (18 months and 10 months) and their partly consecutive combination to a total of 24 months were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
1 Apr 1999
HKSAR v. WONG YUEN SHING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WONG YUEN SHING
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA259/1999
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate correctly identified a 12‑month starting point for this offence, validly reduced it by one‑third for the guilty plea to reach 8 months, and properly concluded that a fine or suspended sentence would be manifestly inadequate given the appellant's 17 prior drug offences and repeated failed treatment attempts.
30 Dec 1988
THE QUEEN v. HO PAK-KUI
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. HO PAK-KUI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1606/1988
The magistrate failed to apply established sentencing principles consistently — notably first‑offender status and proportionality — so the court reduced the fines to levels consistent with appellate precedent and the offenders' status (eg $600 for first offenders and intermediate sums for repeat offenders).
30 Dec 1988
THE QUEEN v. HO PAK-KUI
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. HO PAK-KUI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1605/1988
Magistrates must apply established sentencing principles including first offender status and ability to pay; fines of $1,000 are generally excessive for first offenders in these hawking obstruction cases and should be reduced (first offenders to $600, repeat offenders to higher but proportionate fines as adjusted by the court).
10 Apr 1975
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWONG WING
- Citation
- ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KWONG WING
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CAAR6/1975
The appellate court allowed the Crown's reviews: the proprietor's fine of $250 was manifestly inadequate given persistent repeated offences and was set aside and replaced by six months imprisonment; the printer's fine of $150 was inadequate in principle and was set aside and increased to $1,000, reflecting lesser culpability due to no prior convictions.
12 Dec 1968
LI CHI HUNG v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- LI CHI HUNG v. THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC687/1968
Given the appellant's extensive prior record and the nature of the offences (theft and damage/removal of playground equipment), the sentences of six months and nine months' imprisonment to run concurrently were not unreasonable; appeal dismissed.