Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 67c criminal procedure ordinance

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2006

HKSAR v. WONG TAT YAN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG TAT YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC27/2005

The Court upheld the fixed 29-year sentences as not manifestly excessive because the offences involved premeditated, sustained, knife-enabled triad attacks led by the applicants; the sentencing judge did not misapply legal principles in selecting a 32-year starting point or in allowing a 3-year discount for rehabilitation, and arguments about stress from uncertainty and excessive credit were insufficient to reduce the sentences given the role of the Long-Term Prison Sentences Review Board and established sentencing ranges.
1 Nov 2005

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KA MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KA MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC36/2005

The court found merit in the appeal: given the applicant's demonstrated progress in custody, limited premeditation, surrender to police and the connection between the prior training centre order and the offence, the 28‑year determinate sentence was excessive; a fixed determinate term remained appropriate (indeterminate term not warranted) and the sentence was reduced to 24 years to reflect these factors and to compensate for the uncredited training centre period.
6 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. YEUNG MOK YEH

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG MOK YEH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC483/2004

Applications were dismissed because the applicants sought relief the Court could not grant (no power to grant leave to the Court of Final Appeal in criminal cases), misidentified the statutory provision, failed to comply with statutory time limits and Practice Directions (application filed late without explanation or extension), and because the Court confirmed that while s67C requires judges to take post‑sentence conduct into account, judges must not substitute for the statutory Review Board.
12 Apr 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO TONG SHING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO TONG SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2255/2004

The court determined minimum terms by estimating an appropriate global determinate sentence reflecting the totality of offences and culpability, applied any applicable plea discounts, and then applied statutory remission (up to one third) to convert the effective custodial period into the minimum term; the judge may consider post‑sentence reports but must disregard prior executive determinations under the repealed scheme.
12 Apr 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FUNG WAI HON

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FUNG WAI HON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2257/2004

The court held that under the amended section 67C a judge must determine minimum terms that reflect the gravity of the original offences, retribution and deterrence, adopting the standpoint of the original sentencing judge while taking into account relevant post‑sentence material but not prior executive determinations. Applying totality and remission rules produced the following minimum terms: Lam Pak Hung 25 years; So Ching Kwan 12 years; Ho Tung Shing 20 years; Fung Wai Hon 22 years.
19 Jan 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. VU THANH BINH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. VU THANH BINH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2219/2004

The court exercised its s67C(4)(b) power to quash the life sentence and substitute a determinate term of 28 years because the attack was premeditated, violent and involved weapons and a co-offender, but the respondent's youth and provision of useful information warranted a limited two-year discount from the assessed 30-year term; other mitigating factors were insufficient to justify further reduction.
18 Jan 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KA MAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KA MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2218/2004

Applying s67C(4)(b) the court quashed the life detention sentence and substituted a determinate sentence of 28 years' imprisonment because the killing was largely in the heat of anger with little premeditation, the offender was one month short of 18 at the time, comparable authority supported a 29-year baseline, and a one-year discount was justified by rehabilitation efforts and custodial progress.
11 Jan 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG TAT YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG TAT YAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2216/2004

Prisoners convicted of murder when under 18 who would otherwise have been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure fall to be sentenced to a fixed term under s.67C; in this case the appropriate fixed term was assessed at 32 years with a 3‑year discount for rehabilitation, and the court quashed the original indeterminate sentences and substituted 29 years' imprisonment for each respondent pursuant to s.67C(4)(b).
5 Nov 2004

HKSAR v. YEUNG MOK YEH AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG MOK YEH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2209/2004

For offenders convicted under age 18 who were detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, the court will exercise its power under s67C(4)(b) to quash indeterminate sentences and substitute appropriate fixed determinate terms; applying the offence gravity and mitigation the appropriate term for each respondent is 27 years imprisonment (30 years starting point reduced by 3 years for rehabilitation).