Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence guideline

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU KWOK LEUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC43/2017

Leave to appeal was granted limited to the specific, reasonably arguable ground that the Court of Appeal may have caused substantial and grave injustice by departing from the prevailing sentencing guideline at the time of the offences; additional leave was granted for the 5th and 6th applicants on the discrete issue of the Court of Appeal's consideration of section 109A; all other grounds and the four certified questions were refused as they were either answered by existing authority or lacked sufficient merit.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. PABITA RAUT

Citation

HKSAR v. PABITA RAUT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA551/2016

The magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable and not plainly wrong; prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was taking employment in contravention of s.38AA (washing dishes in a staff-only area, wearing apron and boots, storing personal effects) allowing an irresistible inference of employment; the sentence of 22 months and 2 weeks is consistent with sentencing guideline for conviction after trial and therefore upheld.
15 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. NG HON PIU

Citation

HKSAR v. NG HON PIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC295/2012

The jury’s unanimous guilty verdict was upheld because the recorded admissions, corroborating items seized and expert chemical analysis provided sufficient evidence of trafficking; the trial judge gave proper directions on confessions and credibility; and the sentence of 9 years, determined by reference to the combined quantities and established sentencing guideline for Ice, was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
8 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. SHOHIDUL ISLAM

Citation

HKSAR v. SHOHIDUL ISLAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA826/2011

The court held that the magistrate correctly followed the standard guideline sentence of 15 months for unlawful remaining, appropriately reduced it to 13 months for time spent in immigration custody, and there was no sufficient justification to depart from the guideline; therefore the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.
4 Apr 2006

HKSAR v. CHENG FUK WA

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG FUK WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC442/2005

The trial judge properly accepted the voluntariness and reliability of the applicant's videotaped admissions, corroborated by his conduct in taking police to relevant locations and the similarity of clothing to the victim's description; those findings made the conviction safe. On sentence, the judge correctly applied the 7-year starting point per Mo Kwong-sang and properly reduced it by one year for youth and clear record, making six years not manifestly excessive.
4 Jan 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN PO KAI FREDDY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PO KAI FREDDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1250/1998

The magistrate's findings were upheld: there was sufficient admissible evidence to infer that the arrested persons were employed by the appellant and the s.17I(4) certificates were properly relied upon because the identity of the persons named in the certificates was established by independent evidence; therefore the convictions and the 15‑month sentences were properly imposed and not excessive.
1 Jul 1992

THE QUEEN v. NG CHOI YAU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG CHOI YAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA262/1992

The original sentences were inadequate given the commercial nature and scale of the offences and prevailing sentencing practice; the appropriate range for substantial offences is 12–15 months, and the court substituted sentences of 12 months and 3 months to run concurrently.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU KWOK LEUNG

HKSAR v. PABITA RAUT

HKSAR v. NG HON PIU

HKSAR v. SHOHIDUL ISLAM

HKSAR v. CHENG FUK WA

HKSAR v. CHAN PO KAI FREDDY

THE QUEEN v. NG CHOI YAU