Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing guidelines (lau tak ming)

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. LI LEUNG FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LI LEUNG FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2017

The judge correctly concluded that imprisonment was the only appropriate method of dealing with the applicant for trafficking 9g of cocaine, applied the Lau Tak Ming starting point (just over 4 years 8 months), reduced it modestly for youth to 4 years 6 months, and applied a full one‑third discount for the guilty plea to reach 3 years' imprisonment; there was no arguable error in failing to impose a Training Centre order or in the sentencing arithmetic, so the application for leave to appeal was properly refused.
5 May 2016

HKSAR v. AKINYI GRACE SYLVIA

Citation

HKSAR v. AKINYI GRACE SYLVIA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC324/2015

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the applicant misinterpreted 'SEM' in Lau Tak Ming (which denoted a mixture purity category) as coextensive with the statutory chemical description 'salts of esters of morphine'; the admitted facts permitted aggregation of the separate quantities for sentencing; the delay was substantial and unjustified; and post-conviction assistance is an executive matter not warranting appellate intervention.
8 May 2013

HKSAR v. RUBIANO RESTREPO JOSE IGNACIO

Citation

HKSAR v. RUBIANO RESTREPO JOSE IGNACIO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC487/2012

The Court refused leave to appeal and held the sentencing judge was entitled to adopt a 14 years 6 months starting point, to add 6 months for importation and to apply the conventional one-third discount for the guilty plea; therefore the 10 year sentence was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
17 Dec 2008

HKSAR v. SOMPHAKSORN LAMYAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SOMPHAKSORN LAMYAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC88/2008

Leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because no valid reason was provided for the substantial delay; independently, the sentences were held to be unduly lenient because the sentencing judge adopted starting points below those indicated by Lau Tak Ming and gave excessive weight to mitigation (including chance capacity and financial hardship), undermining deterrence and risking manipulation of sentencing bands, so the Court would not grant relief and left sentences as imposed.
2 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. OWUSU CHRISTOPHER

Citation

HKSAR v. OWUSU CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC25/2006

For 390.28g of heroin the Lau Tak Ming starting point of 14 years was appropriate; applying the one-third reduction for a guilty plea produced a legal and non-excessive sentence (approx. nine years); a token additional three-month reduction to D1 for cooperation was within judicial discretion and applicant's foreignness is not sufficient mitigation to alter the sentence. Leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.
8 May 2002

HKSAR v. TAM KING HON

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM KING HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC31/2001

Although the trial judge made a material misdirection by suggesting the prosecution's burden was 'not as high as' some hypothetical higher state of sureness, the summing up otherwise clearly and repeatedly directed the jury correctly on the burden of proof, the evidence (including admissions and co-accused testimony) was overwhelming, and therefore under the proviso s.83(1) no miscarriage of justice occurred; convictions were upheld. On sentencing the court accepted the overall approach but reduced individual concurrent sentences to align with Lau Tak Ming guidelines while preserving totality…
5 Dec 1997

HKSAR v. SIU PUI CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. SIU PUI CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/1997

The application was dismissed because no satisfactory reason was given for seeking leave out of time and, even if timeously made, the appeal had no prospect of success since the sentencing judge properly aggregated the amounts in accordance with Lau Tak Ming, selected an appropriate starting point and correctly applied the full one-third discount; therefore the sentences were lawful and should stand.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LI LEUNG FAI

HKSAR v. AKINYI GRACE SYLVIA

HKSAR v. RUBIANO RESTREPO JOSE IGNACIO

HKSAR v. SOMPHAKSORN LAMYAI AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. OWUSU CHRISTOPHER

HKSAR v. TAM KING HON

HKSAR v. SIU PUI CHING