Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time served

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. ABDIKARIM, MOHAMED KHALIF

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1177
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA126/2024

While the magistrate's sentencing was not found to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, the court exercised its discretionary power to take into account additional custodial periods (117 days administrative detention and 18 days unrelated custody) such that, when credited against the five month sentence and the remaining term of 31 days, the sentence was varied to time already served and the appellant was ordered to be released immediately.
30 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 913
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2016

Evidence established that the appellant deliberately issued and failed to rescind a blanket non‑enforcement instruction substituting his own decision for legislative requirements; this was wilful nonfeasance without reasonable excuse and sufficiently serious to warrant criminal conviction; sentence was excessive when parity and mitigation are considered and was reduced to time served (immediate release).
16 Dec 2010

HKSAR v. ANDREW ABEL PALMER

Citation

HKSAR v. ANDREW ABEL PALMER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA669/2010

The appeal was allowed because the court found that a 12-month suspended sentence was inappropriate for an offender suffering from schizophrenia and unable to cope with stress; the suspension was removed and substituted with a two-week imprisonment term which the appellant had already served, entitling him to immediate release.
22 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. LEE MING CHOI

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE MING CHOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC502/2006

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed: the 12-month sentence imposed in the District Court was quashed and substituted with a sentence that produced immediate release because the period already spent in custody adequately punished the applicant; the court nonetheless ordered that a consecutive 4-month sentence for a separate shoplifting offence be served.
8 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. YIP KENNY

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KENNY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC504/2005

Under section 67A CPO the appellants were entitled to have remand time previously applied to convictions later quashed treated as reducing their conspiracy sentences; the court therefore reduced the sentences and adjusted earliest release dates to give full effect to that remand time.
21 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. YIP WING KIU

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP WING KIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC519/2001

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise any substantial grounds for challenging his conviction or the two-year sentence and the evidence against him was strong.
27 Dec 2001

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC362/2001

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's claims about interpreter advice and promised reductions were not substantiated by the Reasons for Sentence or the record and the sentences were proper.
16 Jan 1996

R. v. HUI MING CHUEN

Citation

R. v. HUI MING CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA740/1995

The appeal was allowed because, applying R v Ng Tung Fong, the sentence was excessive in light of the acquittal on the offensive weapon charge and the prosecution policy which indicated he would not have been prosecuted otherwise; having served nine months, immediate release was ordered.
1 Oct 1982

HUI KIN-KWOK v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUI KIN-KWOK v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC867/1982

The judge held that the specific circumstances (illness caused by court/prison food, understandable motive for offering a ring, appellant's cooperation with police and acquittal on the robbery charge, and about six weeks already served) amounted to exceptional mitigation justifying reduction of the sentence so as to allow immediate release.
23 Jul 1971

POON LEUNG ALIAS POON WAN AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

POON LEUNG ALIAS POON WAN AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/1971

Appellate review must quash burglary convictions where evidence does not permit inference of intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (first and third appellants); where evidence supports intent an amended charge to 'attempted grievous bodily harm' is permissible and conviction may stand (fourth appellant); sentencing must be adjusted in light of offending facts, prior record relevance, first‑offender status and time in custody; burglary as charged barred suspended sentence under s109B.