Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Unauthorised entry

  • 10 Aug 2023

    香港特別行政區 訴 劉曜彰

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 967
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC147/2022

    Appellate court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the contemporaneous WhatsApp communications together with on-scene observations provided sufficient evidence that the applicant knowingly organised and assisted the movement of unauthorised entrants and that he entered into an agreement to assist another unauthorised entrant; the factual findings and sentencing exercise were not vitiated by procedural unfairness or manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal was refused and convictions and sentences affirmed.

  • 16 Dec 2015

    DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. LAM HON MUK

    Citation
    DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. LAM HON MUK
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP2661/2015

    The respondent failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he or his company took all reasonable precautions to prevent the vessel being used for illegal purposes and thus was not blameless; nevertheless, considering all circumstances the court declined full forfeiture and ordered release of the vessel upon payment of HK$22,300, with the respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs assessed at HK$35,000.

  • 3 Nov 1995

    R. v. HAU YAN KWOK

    Citation
    R. v. HAU YAN KWOK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC351/1995

    The appeal was dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's active role as steersman, the vessel's poor seaworthiness increasing gravity, and the trial judge's lawful application of a four-year starting point with an appropriate discount for guilty plea and custody; the claimed hearing impairment was disproved by specialist examination.

  • 20 Sept 1995

    R. v. KUNG KIN KWONG

    Citation
    R. v. KUNG KIN KWONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC249/1995

    The trial judge was entitled to accept the prosecution evidence and reject the applicant's account based on credibility; there was no basis for appellate interference with the conviction, and the sentence imposed was within the judge's proper discretion and therefore upheld.

  • 2 Mar 1994

    CHAN FAT LOT v. R.

    Citation
    CHAN FAT LOT v. R.
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC429/1993

    Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the prosecution evidence, fortified by counsel's concession, established knowledge of unauthorised entrants; DC 637/92 was a nullity so there was no double jeopardy; applicant's request for retrial lacked merit. However the sentence failed to credit the applicant with the full period of pre-trial detention; appeal against sentence allowed and sentence reduced accordingly.

  • 19 May 1992

    R. v. CHAN SHING CHOI

    Citation
    R. v. CHAN SHING CHOI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC196/1991

    Where illegal immigrants are not concealed in a place from which escape in an emergency would have been difficult and the vessel is seaworthy, the appropriate sentence on a plea of guilty for an offence under s.37C(1) is four years' imprisonment; a higher starting point is only justified by the presence of the specific aggravating features referred to above.

  • 23 Jul 1991

    THE QUEEN v. LEE WING CHUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LEE WING CHUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA375/1991

    Appeal allowed on humanitarian grounds: original 15 month immediate imprisonment quashed and substituted with 12 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months because of the appellant's wife's serious illness, the presence of young children and the time already spent in custody, while preserving deterrence by making the sentence executable if the appellant returns unlawfully.

  • 12 Jul 1991

    THE QUEEN v. WONG CHO CHOP

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. WONG CHO CHOP
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC517/1990

    The sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was upheld because the offence required a deterrent sentence, the deputy judge afforded credit for plea and record, forfeiture of the vessel was correctly excluded from sentencing considerations pursuant to authority, and the applicant as captain bore greater responsibility; therefore the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

  • 31 Aug 1983

    THE QUEEN v. WONG WAH CHIU AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. WONG WAH CHIU AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC980/1982

    The Court refused leave to appeal: the jury, having seen and heard the complainant and been properly directed on inconsistencies, could reasonably accept her evidence in the main essentials; the appellate court had no substantial remaining doubt under Cooper to justify quashing; the prosecutor's brief reference to absence of evidence from some defendants did not amount to a prejudicial comment under s.54(1) because it was immediately superseded by the judge's direction and would not have influenced the jury.