Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing guidelines and aggravating factors

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED ANSAR

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED ANSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge correctly assessed credibility of prosecution witnesses and was entitled to rely on corroborative WhatsApp evidence and consumption paraphernalia; defence counsel had adequate opportunity and made a reasonable tactical choice not to adjourn and the applicant chose not to give evidence; the sentence was within the applicable tariff and permissibly increased for the applicant's status as a torture claimant.
8 Dec 2006

HKSAR v. ZO CHEN CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. ZO CHEN CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA956/2006

Where the prosecution did not charge 'use' of the forged identity card and the facts admitted were ambiguous as to whether the card was produced to mislead, the sentencing judge erred in treating the case as one of use and applying an aggravated starting point and partial consecutivity; consequently the sentence for possession must be reduced to the appropriate starting point for simple possession and the sentences ordered to run concurrently.
24 Aug 1995

R. v. CHUNG TAM

Citation

R. v. CHUNG TAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA408/1995

The magistrate lawfully admitted the appellant's post‑arrest statement as voluntary after conducting the alternative procedure and assessing the totality of the evidence; the refreshment of PW2's memory from his statement was permissible given the statement was made when events were fresh and the magistrate resolved any inconsistency; there was ample evidence to uphold the trafficking conviction. However, the sentence was excessive given the small quantity (0.14g mixture, 0.11g morphine salts), lack of evidence that the venue was a drugs 'black spot', and sentencing guidance in Lau Tak Ming r…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED ANSAR

HKSAR v. ZO CHEN CHI

R. v. CHUNG TAM