12 Jan 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 李嘉文
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 131
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA401/2023
裁判官在審酌兩份註冊精神科醫生的專業報告後，合理地認定上訴人精神狀態不適宜入戒毒所並符合《精神健康條例》第45條的要件，根據該等專業意見下令三個月住院治療屬合理且並非明顯過重，故上訴無理由，駁回並維持原判。
Hong Kong Case Law
Sentencing appeal
9 Apr 2010
HKSAR v. LEE KIN WAH
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LEE KIN WAH
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA990/2009
The offence—an unprovoked domestic assault by a mature male causing significant facial and ocular injury requiring surgery, coupled with the appellant's recent bound over and prior convictions—warranted immediate custody; having assessed aggravating and mitigating features the correct sentence on appeal is 12 months imprisonment, and the appellate court may substitute that sentence even where the magistrate's assessment contains no demonstrable error.
19 Mar 2010
HKSAR v. KONG MAN LUNG, LESLIE
- Citation
- HKSAR v. KONG MAN LUNG, LESLIE
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA731/2009
The Court allowed the appeal in part because material not before the sentencing magistrate justified a further reduction: each charge reduced to nine months with three months of the second charge to run consecutively to the first, producing an aggregate sentence of 12 months imprisonment.
30 Dec 2004
HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI LINH
- Citation
- HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI LINH
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1128/2004
The sentences imposed were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive: the theft sentences of 4 months each (concurrent) and the 2 year sentence for breach of a deportation order (consecutive) were appropriate after allowing reductions for guilty pleas; appeal dismissed.
11 Sept 2002
HKSAR v. WAT YIU KWONG CARDIFF
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WAT YIU KWONG CARDIFF
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC237/2001
The conviction was upheld because the totality of the evidence — presentation of a false business card, repeated representations as a manager, presence and activity with the known organisers, and conduct consistent with a long firm fraud — warranted the inference the applicant knowingly assisted the conspiracy; the abandonment of the sentence appeal was not a nullity because it was an intended, informed decision and mere misjudgement of prospects does not vitiate a notice of abandonment.
23 Jul 2002
HKSAR v. HO YUNG CHING AND OTHERS
- Citation
- HKSAR v. HO YUNG CHING AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC197/2002
The sentences imposed were within proper bounds given the paucity of mitigating factors and the guilty pleas did not warrant reduction; therefore the applications for leave to appeal against sentence are dismissed.
9 Nov 2000
HKSAR v. CHAN SHU KEI ERIC
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHAN SHU KEI ERIC
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA775/2000
Although the magistrate's sentence was not inappropriate on the material before her, the Court of First Instance had fresh material (Community Service Suitability Report demonstrating reform and suitability) which justified substituting the detention centre sentence with a 120‑hour community service order with specified conditions, and the appeal against sentence was allowed on that basis.
12 Sept 2000
HKSAR v. MAN KIN WING AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MAN KIN WING AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA173/2000
The convictions and sentences were upheld because the Summary of Facts established that the employee's nomination and acceptance of reward were acts in relation to her principal's business under the statutory test and the guilty pleas were not nullities; the magistrate acted within sentencing discretion in imposing 3 months' imprisonment.
19 May 1987
THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KIN CHAK AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KIN CHAK AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC612/1986
The court held that the 1st applicant's offence was as serious as possible given his senior police role and substantial payments and, despite mitigation, the sentence was not excessive and leave to appeal was dismissed; the 2nd applicant, though active, was not a police officer and of lesser culpability so his sentence was excessive and was reduced from four to three years.