Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing disparity

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2022

香港特別行政區訴林啟明

Citation

[2022] HKCA 141
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC171/2021

The bail application was refused because the sentence of 4 years 8 months was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances: the applicant played an active frontline role throughout the incident, carried a potentially lethal wooden stick, and participated in organised, premeditated private collective violence that aggravated culpability (notably by proceeding to the platform/carriage); there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal to justify bail.
2 Oct 2015

HKSAR v. LEE YIK LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE YIK LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2015

The applicant's convictions arose from premeditated, coordinated conduct in which he played a central instigating role, causing fear and using threats (including implied triad backing); the sentencing judge's starting points and discounts were within permissible exercise of discretion, concurrency and totality were properly applied, and no arguable ground of manifest excess or unjust disparity was shown — therefore leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
27 May 2014

HKSAR v. ZHANG WEIQIANG

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHANG WEIQIANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC198/2013

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the sentencing judge did not err in law or principle: the starting point of four years was within the appropriate range for the offense and the reduction for plea and mitigation produced a justified 32 month sentence; disparity with Yu's sentence for an unconnected offence is not a ground for interference.
8 Jan 2014

HKSAR v. CHAU PING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC2/2013

The conviction was safe because the trial judge gave correct, full and balanced directions on identification and the jury could properly rely on Mrs B's identification; the 12-year starting point for the robbery and the total sentence of 13 years 6 months (with 18 months of the 2-year burglary term consecutive) were not manifestly excessive given the serious aggravating features, the live trial evidence, and the offender's record; disparity with a co-accused sentenced on a guilty plea and Summary of Facts does not justify interference.
30 May 2013

HKSAR v. WAN YICK TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN YICK TAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA189/2013

Although the original sentence of two months was not manifestly excessive given the need for deterrence in prison, the court found the identical sentence for differently charged defendants risked legitimate grievance; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part by ordering one month to run concurrently to mark the difference between offences while leaving the custodial element intact.
21 May 2012

香港特別行政區訴麥文亮

Citation

香港特別行政區訴麥文亮
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA837/2011

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to analyse and explain how he resolved significant and contested aspects of the prosecution witness's account and misapplied reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe.
9 Sept 2009

HKSAR v. WAN CHI KAU

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN CHI KAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA234/2009

The sentence of 15 months imprisonment was appropriate and not excessive given the large quantity of cigarettes (164,200), the appellant's status as a recidivist with 11 prior similar convictions, and the proper application of the totality principle; the magistrate permissibly considered the subsequent offending while on bail only in fixing totality and concurrency; appeal dismissed.
23 Jun 2009

HKSAR v. MOHAMED OMAR ALLY

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMED OMAR ALLY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC407/2008

Given the quantity of heroin (about 1.07 kg) and the aggravating international element, a starting point in the region of 23 years was appropriate; after the customary one-third discount the resulting sentence of 15 years 4 months was not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
19 Aug 2008

HKSAR v. PHAENTHONG KANOKWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. PHAENTHONG KANOKWAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC466/2007

The Court dismissed the appeals because the sentences imposed conformed to the Lau Tak-ming guideline tariffs and therefore were proper; errors in other, unrelated cases that produced unduly lenient sentences do not justify reducing correctly imposed sentences.
16 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. LUI KAM MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI KAM MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC273/2007

The court found the overall sentence of 23 years to be manifestly excessive because the recorder's notional totality resembled a sentence after contest; by re-exercising sentencing discretion and adjusting the consecutive elements (reducing consecutive parts on counts 2, 3 and 4 to 2, 2 and 1 years respectively while retaining other discounts), the proper total sentence is 16 years imprisonment.