Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence tariff

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO KIT WANG

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC48/2017

Leave to appeal was granted limited to the issue that it is reasonably arguable the Court of Appeal departed from the principle that offenders must be sentenced by reference to the guideline prevailing at the time of the offence; leave was additionally granted for the 5th and 6th applicants on the discrete ground that the Court of Appeal may have failed properly to consider s.109A CPO; leave was refused on the four certified questions as they were already answered in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung & Others and on other grounds for lack of merit.
12 Oct 2016

香港特別行政區訴梁均棟

Citation

香港特別行政區訴梁均棟
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA399/2016

Given the appellant's long‑term assistance that enabled a five‑plus year overstay and the resultant misuse and burdening of public medical services (including an unbooked delivery in an emergency department), the nine‑month starting point adopted by the sentencing judge was appropriate; a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea produced a six‑month term which was not manifestly excessive and was necessary for deterrence; the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
12 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. RADO MARY LITREN ADHIAMBO

Citation

HKSAR v. RADO MARY LITREN ADHIAMBO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC143/2014

Leave to appeal out of time was denied because the applicant's post-trial attempt to change plea could not attract guilty-plea mitigation and there were no compelling mitigating circumstances; the sentencing starting point and enhancement for the international element were appropriate and the sentence was not susceptible to successful challenge.
10 Jul 2012

HKSAR v. RUNGRUEANG CHUTIKAN

Citation

HKSAR v. RUNGRUEANG CHUTIKAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC430/2011

The starting point under the Lau tariff, enhanced for the international element, was appropriate; the applicant received a proper discount for her guilty plea; the sentence of 10 years and two months is not manifestly excessive and the appeal is refused.
16 May 2012

HKSAR v. DIALLO MAMADOU

Citation

HKSAR v. DIALLO MAMADOU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC408/2011

The appropriate starting point for trafficking 0.49 kg of heroin hydrochloride was in the region of 17 years; the international element warranted at least one year additional to reach 18 years; applying the normal discount for the guilty plea produced the imposed term of 12 years, which was not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
30 Oct 2009

HKSAR v. LAU WAI PING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU WAI PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC303/2008

The jury was entitled to accept the prosecution evidence and reject the applicant's account; the conviction is neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory. The 10-year sentence falls within the proper tariff applied by analogy to cocaine trafficking, and the applicant's advanced age did not justify a lesser sentence given his prior convictions.
5 Feb 2008

HKSAR v. GARCIA PALACIOS MARCO ANTONIO

Citation

HKSAR v. GARCIA PALACIOS MARCO ANTONIO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC154/2007

Quantities over 600g are in the very large category warranting an upward adjustment from the 20-year cut-off but the judge's choice of a 25-year starting point for approximately 857g, even allowing for the foreign aggravating factor, was disproportionate; a starting point just over 22 years better reflected gravity, and after a one-third discount for a guilty plea the appropriate sentence is 15 years' imprisonment.
17 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. YAN KAM FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. YAN KAM FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC288/2004

The Court refused leave because the trial judge correctly applied the Lau Tak-ming tariff, adopted a permissible starting point of seven years for nearly 40 g of heroin, applied the usual one-third discount for the guilty plea, and there were no other mitigating factors; therefore the ultimate sentence of 56 months was not wrong in principle or excessive.
21 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. SOO CHI-WA

Citation

HKSAR v. SOO CHI-WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC413/2003

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the sentence fell within the established tariff for the quantity of heroin involved, the judge adopted a lenient starting point, applied an appropriate one-third discount for the guilty plea, and there was no merit or special reason to reduce the sentence further or to grant leave despite the delay.
5 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. ISKANDAR

Citation

HKSAR v. ISKANDAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC239/2002

The Court held the 16 year sentence was appropriate for trafficking over 3.8 kg of methamphetamine, that the reduction from a 25 year starting point for mitigation was reasonable, and there was no basis to depart from the established tariff; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.