Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence adequacy

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2008

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HAU PING CHUEN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HAU PING CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/2007

The Court held the 14 month sentence was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of an armed multiple stabbing attack; the correct least starting point for such an offence in the circumstances was 5 years, reduced to 3 years and 4 months to reflect the guilty plea, with a further 6 month concession for time already served/earliest release considerations, resulting in a substituted sentence of 2 years and 10 months imprisonment under section 81B; additional discounts for cooperation and an offer of compensation were inappropriate beyond the guilty plea discount.
22 Nov 2007

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHIU CHUN WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHIU CHUN WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR1/2007

The Court held the original sentences were manifestly inadequate given the deliberate and systematic thefts causing a complete loss of $14 million, lack of remorse and no compensation; community service for D1 was an error in principle; appropriate substituted concurrent sentences are 2 years imprisonment per count for D1 and 4 years per count for D2.
15 Aug 1996

R. v. CHAN TING YU

Citation

R. v. CHAN TING YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA597/1996

The court held that although the robbery warranted a higher starting point (at least three years), the magistrate was constrained by a two year jurisdictional limit and guilty plea credit must be calculated from that limit; the appellate court substituted an 18 month sentence for the robbery count and structured partial concurrency/consecutivity (9 months consecutive, 6 months concurrent of the 15 month immigration term, and the 1 month theft term consecutive) to maintain a proper totality of 28 months; appeal dismissed.
9 Jan 1996

R. v. LIU KA FAI

Citation

R. v. LIU KA FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC446/1995

The appeal was refused because, despite comments that both the starting point and the discount were on the low side, the net sentence of four years was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and therefore did not warrant intervention by the Court of Appeal.
18 Nov 1992

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SIT SHU NAM AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SIT SHU NAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR11/1992

The Court of Appeal held that the 'clang of the prison gates' justification was inappropriate for a repeat offender with 18 prior convictions, the District Judge was entitled to order the section 39 sentence to run concurrently because he found it part of the general attack, but the three month term for the ABH was manifestly inadequate and must be increased to six months.
18 Apr 1990

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING CHAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING CHAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC525/1989

The trial judge erred in approach to mitigation and discount for a guilty plea; having determined an appropriate starting point of five years for a breach of trust involving the sums stolen, the guilty plea warranted a one year reduction, and the sentence of five years was quashed and substituted with four years imprisonment.
12 Aug 1987

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI CHI KO AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI CHI KO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR14/1987

Given the violent, well-planned, armed robbery in domestic premises, youth (except extreme youth of a 15‑year‑old) did not amount to an exceptional circumstance; immediate terms of imprisonment should have been imposed and, on review with customary reductions for guilty pleas and review procedure, the appropriate sentences were 4 years for LI Chi‑ko and LEE Chi‑yuen and 3 years for CHUNG Sai‑kwong, while the detention sentence for LAM Kam‑yuen (aged about 15) was not disturbed.
24 Nov 1983

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHU PIU-WING AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHU PIU-WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/1983

Although the sentences imposed were inadequate and wrong in principle given the seriousness of corrupt conduct by police officers, the Court refused to increase the sentences on review because exceptional ad misericordiam circumstances (an aborted first trial causing delay, almost one year between first appearance and final judgment, and two respondents having already served their sentences and obtained employment) made interference unjust; therefore the application to increase sentences was dismissed.
15 May 1980

ATTORNEY GERNERAL v. LEUNG MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GERNERAL v. LEUNG MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/1980

The Court held that the offence was a deliberate, planned expedition to introduce illegal immigrants for gain in circumstances where such conduct poses a substantial threat to community stability; the magistrate's sentences (six and nine months) were manifestly inadequate and, absent significant distinguishing features between the defendants, should be increased to two years' imprisonment each.