Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing guidelines

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

HKSAR v. LEE ERNEST AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 978
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1/2018

Because both applicants were sentenced on 13 December 2017 (before the 18 September 2018 cut-off) and were not 'in the system', they were not eligible to benefit from the revised sentencing guidelines; the Court exercised its discretion and refused to extend time or grant leave to appeal as no substantial explanation for the long delay was given and the revised guidelines would not produce a sufficiently significant reduction to warrant interference.
19 May 2026

香港特別行政區訴洪良

Citation

[2026] HKCA 995
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC445/2025

The trial judge correctly assessed credibility and mitigation, concluded remorse was not sufficiently demonstrated beyond what is reflected in guilty-plea credit, and reasonably selected a 4-year baseline for HK$3,000,000 with cross-border aggravation; applying one-third credit and a 20% prosecution uplift to 38 months was within proper sentencing discretion, so leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
15 May 2026

HKSAR v. ANDRADE PEREIRA DOS SANTOS THIAGO FELIPE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 980
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/2025

Refusal of extension of time because, on the evidence, the applicant's delay was unexplained and the revised guidelines would at best reduce the sentence by approximately 11 months, a difference the court considered not sufficiently significant to warrant out‑of‑time leave; accordingly no cogent and compelling reason justified the extension.
15 May 2026

HKSAR v. LAM WAI KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 988
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/2024

The judge's factual findings on the voir dire and the adequacy of his summing-up were not shown to be plainly wrong; the contested admissions and Exhibit P78 were properly admitted and left to the jury for weight; the grounds of appeal against conviction were not reasonably arguable and leave is refused; however, leave to appeal against sentence is granted out of time because the revised sentencing guidelines apply to the large quantity of cocaine involved and leave to appeal sentence is therefore permitted, with legal aid granted to D1.
15 May 2026

HKSAR v. WANG ZHI

Citation

[2026] HKCA 977
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC131/2025

Leave to appeal against sentence out of time was granted because refusal would shut out a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal; applying the Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines reduced the appropriate starting point from 23 years 9 months to about 20 years 6 months; the court upheld a 2‑year uplift for entering Hong Kong to commit the offence; applying a 25% discount for the late plea to the resulting notional sentence produced a sentence of 16 years 10 months, and the appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence from 19 years 4 months to 16 years 10 months.
14 May 2026

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI WAI

Citation

[2026] HKCA 967
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC162/2022

Read as a whole the judge's summing‑up correctly conveyed the burden and standard of proof and sufficiently directed the jury that they must acquit if the defence account 'is or may be correct'; the judge's statements that denied suggestions were 'no evidence' were proper in context and did not usurp the jury's role; the sentence was adjusted on appeal to reflect revised sentencing guidelines, reducing it to 23 years' imprisonment.
30 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHIU YUN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 926
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC156/2025

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because, even accepting the applicability of the revised guidelines and reassessing role and culpability, any reduction in sentence would be insubstantial (around one month) and therefore not a ground for appellate interference; the offence remained extremely serious and refusal of out‑of‑time leave was appropriate.
29 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. FUNG WING LAM, CORRENR

Citation

[2026] HKCA 893
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC136/2023

The abandonment was not a nullity because the applicant understood the consequences of signing Form VII and her decision was not shown to be uninformed or involuntary; moreover, even if reinstated the sentence would not have been materially different given the applicant's significant role, the wider scope of the conspiracy and aggravating features, so the application to reinstate was refused.
28 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHO WAH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 896
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC166/2025

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable basis that the revised guidelines would produce a significant reduction; any arithmetic difference would be marginal, and the sustained, sizable manufacturing operation rendered the sentence not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
8 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. LAU SIU FUNG

Citation

[2026] HKCA 592
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC206/2024

The correct sentencing approach is to assess the manufacturing (or conspiracy to manufacture) count first as the anchor to avoid double-counting quantities when dealing with accompanying trafficking counts; trafficking sentences that merely reflect the manufacturing process should ordinarily run concurrent, but a limited consecutive element is justified where the defendant also acted as a retailer or trafficked different drugs. Applying that approach and the applicable guidelines, both appeals were allowed in part and the overall sentences were reduced (Au to 11 years; Lau to 11 years 11 mont…