Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing parity

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2023

香港特別行政區訴楊子駿

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 137
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA227/2022

The appeal is allowed because the magistrate erred in principle by imposing a 240‑hour community service order on a first offender without injury or evidence of serious impairment and without identifying aggravating factors justifying an atypically severe sentence; the community service order is quashed and, if unfinished, is to be substituted with a fine of HKD 8,000, with other penalties (two‑year disqualification and requirement to attend driving improvement course) to remain.
30 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. TALWINDER, SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1411
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA61/2020

The magistrate was entitled to adopt a starting point within the pickpocketing guideline and to reduce the guilty plea discount because the appellant had absconded; the reduced discount (slightly less than 25%) and sentence of 9 months and 1 day were proportionate and not excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
13 May 2013

香港特別行政區訴范海廷

Citation

香港特別行政區訴范海廷
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA606/2012

Given the appellant's admissions of ownership and responsibility, his presence and role in the pharmacy, the quantity and insecure storage of Schedule 1 poisons, and the absence of tested exculpatory evidence, the only reasonable inference beyond reasonable doubt was that he was responsible for the improper storage; conviction is therefore safe, but the original sentence of 3 months immediate imprisonment was disproportionate and was substituted with a fine of HK$50,000.
15 Apr 2013

香港特別行政區訴張瑞冰及另四人

Citation

香港特別行政區訴張瑞冰及另四人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA628/2012

Immediate imprisonment for electoral fraud (種票) is appropriate to achieve deterrence and to protect electoral integrity; the sentencing judge did not err in ordering imprisonment for the second to fifth appellants; however, where a specific appellant demonstrates exceptional mitigating circumstances (first appellant: influence by spouse and serious family hardship) a reduction from 2 months to 6 weeks is justified.
25 Aug 2011

HKSAR v. LAI YAT BING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI YAT BING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA514/2011

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate did not err in principle: the $10,000 fine was not excessive in light of the quantity and estimated value of the DVDs, the appellant's role as a seller, and the magistrate's enquiry into means to pay; the sentence and fine are consistent with established authority permitting fines in addition to custody.
10 Oct 2003

HKSAR v. LAM YIN HAR

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM YIN HAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA818/2003

The appeal was allowed in part because although the Magistrate was entitled to treat the Appellant as culpable as keepers and to adjust sentence calculations, he erred in altering the basis for concurrency on review without giving defence counsel an opportunity to make representations; accordingly charge 7 must be fixed at 4 months imprisonment and ordered to run concurrently with charges 5 and 6, reducing the total effective sentence to 4 months.
15 May 1997

R. v. FONG KWOK YUNG

Citation

R. v. FONG KWOK YUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/1997

The Court held that the trial judge properly addressed the dangers of identification evidence, was entitled to accept the victim's identification given the immediate parade, possession of the stolen watch by a co-accused and surrounding circumstances; convictions were safe and the individual sentences and overall totality were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
14 Feb 1997

THE QUEEN v. LEE CHEUK HO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE CHEUK HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC658/1994

Leave to appeal out of time was granted because the interests of justice required it; the sentencing judge erred in approach to concurrent sentences and failed to justify the heavier sentence relative to co-offenders and the mitigating relevance of a toy gun, and therefore the appropriate global sentence was 9 years' imprisonment on the robbery count with 9 years on the imitation firearm count to run concurrently.
17 Nov 1994

CHAN CHI FAI and Another v. R.

Citation

CHAN CHI FAI and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC636/1993

The Court held the cautioned and post-recorded statements were properly admitted as voluntary, there was no duty on the prosecution to call the Station Sergeant before the jury, the jury directions did not prejudice the applicants, post-recording in police notebooks is an acceptable practice, and the eight-year sentences were appropriate; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.
25 Feb 1994

LAU KWOK HUNG, JACKY and Another v. R.

Citation

LAU KWOK HUNG, JACKY and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC99/1993

The Court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge's directions on accomplice evidence and the isolated wording were not prejudicial or misleading in the context of the summing-up; any uncertainty regarding the defence witness and photograph was rectified and not material; the five-year and one-year sentences were justified by the applicant's substantial involvement and not manifestly excessive.