Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing guidelines and starting points

Legal area

Court

5 Jun 2023

香港特別行政區訴施銘洋及另四人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 915
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC575/2021

Court fixed starting points by reference to the defendant’s role, equipment carried and comparable sentences in the same riot: D12, D14 and D18 had a 5‑year starting point; D4 and D9 a 4 years 9 months starting point. The court then applied specified monthly deductions for good conduct, trial conduct, youth and custodial/caretaking hardship leading to final custodial terms: D4 4 years 8 months; D9 4 years 3 months; D12 4 years 11 months; D14 4 years 11 months; D18 4 years 6 months.
23 Dec 2022

香港特別行政區訴陳芷𦲽

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA359/2022

The trial judge did not err: the 15‑month sentences on counts 1 and 2 represented a one‑third reduction from a 22.5‑month starting point for guilty pleas; the individual and aggregate sentences (total 20 months and 5 days) were not manifestly excessive; the appellant's new allegations were unsupported and prosecutorial delay was not prejudicial, so the appeal is dismissed.
25 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. YIP SING YEUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC216/2021

The Court held the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the judge acted within his sentencing discretion in enhancing starting points because of the applicant’s serious and similar prior convictions, the presence of methamphetamine and the attempt to flee; it was proper not to treat the applicant as a fresh offender and the concurrent sentences and disqualification were lawful.
18 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. AKHTAR, MUHAMMAD JAVED

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA474/2019

The Magistrate correctly applied the Usman Butt guideline to set the starting point for a trial conviction, and correctly refused to discount 90 days of unrelated administrative detention under section 67A(1A) CPO; no error of law or principle justified interference with the sentence, so the appeal is dismissed.
25 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. TSIANG ON YAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 460
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC25/2018

The Court upheld the sentencing judge's adoption of a 12-year starting point reduced by one third for a guilty plea to 8 years because the firearm was in working order with 13 rounds of live ammunition readily available, the applicant's DNA was on the pistol, drugs were present at the premises, the hiding of the weapon indicated illicit intent, and there was insufficient mitigation to warrant a lower starting point.
19 Jul 2018

香港特別行政區訴陳國全

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1867
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA138/2018

The court held the appellant deliberately exploited the victim's negligence in the basketball court and the theft was of comparable seriousness to pickpocketing; applying Ngo Van Huy principles a 15‑month starting point was justified given the smartphone's value and the appellant's method. A 3‑month uplift for the appellant's extensive and recent recidivism was proportionate and not double‑counting. Although the trial judge's grant of a one‑third guilty‑plea discount on a plea entered on the day of trial departed from usual guidance, the Court declined to alter that discretionary allowance. T…
14 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. ALI SAIF

Citation

[2018] HKCA 358
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC309/2017

The Court held that the judge's starting point of 9 years 9 months, the 12-month enhancement for the applicant's status as a Form 8 recognizance holder, the full one-third guilty plea discount and the activation of the 2-week suspended sentence (with totality considered) were within principled judicial discretion; the enhancement was not manifestly excessive and the overall sentence was appropriate, therefore leave to appeal and the appeal were refused and dismissed.
8 Dec 2017

HKSAR v. SULEMAN MUHAMMAD

Citation

HKSAR v. SULEMAN MUHAMMAD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC113/2017

The judge's findings that the occupants were unauthorized entrants and that the applicant's unsworn interview account was inherently implausible were reasonably open on the evidence, so leave to appeal conviction was refused; however, there was a reasonably arguable ground that the sentencing judge erred in applying a five year starting point (appropriate for captains/persons in charge) and in enhancing it for absence of safety equipment where the applicant appeared to be a crew member simpliciter, so leave to appeal sentence was granted and legal aid provided.
5 Apr 2017

HKSAR v. Fitri

Citation

HKSAR v. Fitri
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC265/2016

The Court held the sentencing starting point and two one‑year enhancements (international importation and breach of Form 8 recognizance) were within guideline ranges, the one‑third reduction for an early guilty plea was properly applied, the applicant's admissions and conduct rebut claims of unwitting receipt, and therefore the sentence of 12 years was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was refused.
14 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. SINGH, BIKRAM

Citation

HKSAR v. SINGH, BIKRAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA297/2016

The magistrate correctly applied the established guideline (12 months on plea, uplift for conviction after trial) and properly adopted 18 months as the starting point; there were no sufficient mitigating factors to reduce the sentence and the offences were distinct, so an order that the 18 months run consecutively to the 4 months in ESCC 1009/2016 was appropriate; accordingly the appeal against sentence is dismissed and the sentence is confirmed.