Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing range

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2019

香港特別行政區訴梁養根

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2971
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA338/2019

The judge's factual finding that the appellant had successfully avoided the complainant and then deliberately turned and struck him meant the appellant could not have had an honest belief of being under attack; the force used was therefore unreasonable and unnecessary, so conviction stands; however, the six‑month starting point was disproportionate on the facts and is reduced to five months' imprisonment.
5 Mar 2003

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HOI LAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HOI LAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA93/2003

Given the appellant's factual background, prior convictions and unsuccessful DATC interventions, the Magistrate properly adopted a 9 month starting point in line with authority and lawfully reduced it by one third for an early plea to arrive at a six month sentence; the sentence is appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.
29 May 1997

R. v. WONG KIM MING

Citation

R. v. WONG KIM MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA449/1997

The magistrate properly considered all reports and alternatives, rejected probation as unsuitable on the appellant's background and the Young Offenders Panel assessments, and lawfully exercised discretion to impose detention in a training centre; any misstatement by defence counsel as to sentencing ranges did not render the sentence wrong in principle and the appellate court will not disturb the sentence, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
12 Oct 1993

R. v. LI KAM CHAN

Citation

R. v. LI KAM CHAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC123/1993

Conviction upheld because there was no basis to disturb the trial judge's adverse credibility findings; the District Judge erred in principle by imposing one year for simple possession of a relatively small narcotic quantity (5.65g), and by reference to applicable precedents and the totality principle the appropriate sentence is 9 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively to earlier sentences.
7 Mar 1989

THE QUEEN v. TANG WING SUM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TANG WING SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1665/1988

Given authority establishing a three to six month range for this offence absent aggravating features, the court reduced the custodial sentence to permit immediate release (time served) and set aside the $20,000 fine because there was no evidence the appellant shared in profits; bail monies should not be retained to punish third parties.
18 May 1983

THE QUEEN v. IP TIN-YAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. IP TIN-YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1109/1982

The Court held that for multiple armed robberies involving extreme violence the appropriate determinate sentencing range is broadly 20–30 years; sentences exceeding 30 years should be reserved for wholly abnormal cases and life imprisonment is an available sanction for the worst cases; the trial sentence of 28 years was excessive in this instance and was reduced to 25 years on the principal counts, with a plea discount of three years being appropriate.
11 Nov 1976

TSOI CHUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSOI CHUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC613/1976

The appellate court found the aggregate seven year term excessive and ordered the two robbery sentences to run concurrently (and concurrently with the other sentences) to avoid an unduly harsh total sentence while recognizing the seriousness of taxi robberies involving weapons.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 梁養根

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HOI LAN

R. v. WONG KIM MING

R. v. LI KAM CHAN

THE QUEEN v. TANG WING SUM

THE QUEEN v. IP TIN-YAN

TSOI CHUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴梁養根