Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence disparity

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

HKSAR v. WONG CHUNG HANG, HENRY

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1144
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC49/2025

The applicant's challenge failed because his overall sentence was not manifestly excessive: his essential facilitation role, the premeditated nature of the burglaries, use of a getaway car with false plates, his significant prior record and commission shortly after release justified elevated starting points and consecutive sentencing for the separate failure to surrender offence; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
19 Nov 2024

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HOI PUN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1071
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC8/2022

Leave to appeal against sentence out of time was refused because the applicant provided no credible or satisfactory justification for the substantial and inordinate delay and, on substantive assessment, there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal: the sentencing starting points were within proper bounds and any small arithmetic discrepancy could be justified by the applicant’s greater role and prior conviction; issues about the unusual ‘no separate penalty’ did not establish merit sufficient to overcome the delay objection.
20 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. THANASEGARAN ARUMUGAM

Citation

HKSAR v. THANASEGARAN ARUMUGAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC314/2014

The court refused to certify any points of law under s32(2) because the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the four month delay and the issues raised had been addressed in prior judgments and lacked merit; consequently the Notice of Motion was dismissed and no certificate issued.
11 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. NATUHUMUZA MILDRED

Citation

HKSAR v. NATUHUMUZA MILDRED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC29/2014

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant's 26‑month delay was substantial and inadequately explained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit: the sentence of 10 years and 4 months was within the appropriate range given the 380g heroin and the international importation aggravating factor, a 15‑year starting point was justified and a one‑third discount for guilty plea was properly applied; the applicant's HIV did not justify further reduction and disparity with another judge's sentence did not merit interference.
11 Aug 2010

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SUET TING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SUET TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC226/2009

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence, holding the 12 month term was not manifestly excessive; the sentencing judge had properly assessed the roles of the conspirators; prosecution delay and late restitution did not merit reduction; post‑sentence psychiatric illness did not constitute exceptional grounds to vary or suspend the already lenient sentence.
27 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. MOK YU CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK YU CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/2008

The Court held the trial judge did not err: the evidence, including TSOI's testimony, was not inherently incapable of belief and credibility was for the jury; the directions on accomplice evidence, identification and flight were adequate and balanced when read as a whole; the 10-year sentence for the second applicant was justified by his greater role and weapon use and therefore not disproportionate.
14 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. LIN SIU LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. LIN SIU LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC383/2008

Given the applicant was the instigator and leading figure in prolonged, cruel beatings of a particularly vulnerable victim, and the sentencing judge took into account the retrial and plea offers, the 12-year sentence for manslaughter was proper and not manifestly excessive; therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
24 Mar 2009

HKSAR v. YIP WAI LEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP WAI LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC356/2008

The Court held the starting point of five years and six months was within permissible limits given aggravating factors (private premises, elderly victim, two offenders acting in concert) and the appellant's appalling record including violent offences; a one‑third reduction for plea produced the sentence of three years and eight months which was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
19 Aug 2008

HKSAR v. BUNLOUN JANTAKARN

Citation

HKSAR v. BUNLOUN JANTAKARN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC397/2007

The Court dismissed the appeals because the sentences imposed on the applicants conformed to the Lau Tak-ming guidelines and were therefore appropriate; sentencing errors in other, unrelated cases do not warrant reducing correctly imposed sentences here.
17 Jun 2008

LIM HAU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

LIM HAU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC17/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's directions, including a Ghosh direction on dishonesty and directions as to intent to cause economic loss, were adequate; the claim of right did not require additional direction; a Brown direction was unnecessary as the charge and evidence indicated detriment to all interested persons; there was no basis to displace Ghosh with Peters; and the 2nd applicant's sentence did not involve substantial and grave injustice.