Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of imitation firearm

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. LEONG HOW SENG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 981
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC59/2025

The court granted leave to appeal because there were arguable and potentially material grounds that the sentencing judge may not have given adequate weight to mitigation (notably advanced age and the particular circumstances of the attempted robbery), and that the chosen starting points and discounts (and the consecutive element) could materially affect the overall sentence; accordingly the applicant was permitted to challenge the sentence on appeal.
3 Nov 2009

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEE CHUN-HO, JEEF

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEE CHUN-HO, JEEF
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR9/2008

The Court held the original total of 42 months was manifestly inadequate for robbery with an imitation firearm. It affirmed a higher starting point for such robbery (10 years) and a separate starting point for the offence of using an imitation firearm (6 years), rejected an extra 6‑month discount on top of the one‑third plea reduction, and held that part of the sentence for the imitation firearm offence should run consecutively to the robbery sentence to reflect its distinct and outrageous nature; accordingly the Court quashed the original sentence and substituted new terms.
1 Sept 2009

HKSAR v. FU CHOI CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. FU CHOI CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC367/2008

Given multiple, well‑planned armed robberies using an imitation pistol, the applicant's serious prior convictions and lack of causal connection between alleged psychiatric/drug problems and the offences, the 10 year total sentence is not manifestly excessive and is appropriate; leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
10 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. SUEN PAN HOI

Citation

HKSAR v. SUEN PAN HOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/1999

The Court held that an 8-year starting point was excessive for this robbery which begin as a domestic burglary and involved an imitation firearm found after entry; a 6-year starting point was appropriate, reduced by one-third for the guilty plea to 4 years imprisonment for the robbery count, to be served consecutively to the applicant's existing 15-month sentence, and therefore the appeal against sentence was allowed and the original 5-year sentence reduced to 4 years consecutive to the 15-month sentence.
2 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC776/1997

For robbery by a single opportunist using an imitation firearm the proper sentencing starting point is ten years; an earliest-plea full one-third discount should be available and, because the trial judge did not give the full one-third discount, the Court varied the sentence from seven years to six years and eight months.
23 Aug 1995

R. v. CHEUNG HON CHUNG

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG HON CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC84/1995

The sentencing judge did not err in refusing to treat unproven assertions in mitigation as established facts or in declining to warn defence to call evidence; the 16-year starting point was supportable on the admitted facts and the final sentence of 8 years after discount for cooperation was not manifestly excessive.
28 Feb 1995

R. v. YU TAI WING

Citation

R. v. YU TAI WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC454/1994

For a lone, opportunistic public-place robbery using an imitation firearm where no injury occurs, sentencing must distinguish from high-stakes robberies; a starting point of 12 years was excessive in this factual context. The Court set an overall appropriate sentence of 8 years (by ordering consecutive terms of 5 and 3 years) after applying the totality principle and giving weight to the applicant's 20 years unblemished police service.
16 Feb 1995

R. v. LEE KIN CHUEN and Another

Citation

R. v. LEE KIN CHUEN and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/1994

The trial judge's choice of a 12-year starting point (with concurrent sentences imposed) fell within the permissible sentencing range given the gravity of the robbery and the involvement of an imitation firearm; there was no material error in weighing mitigation and therefore no basis for appellate interference, so leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
2 Sept 1994

TSANG KAM CHEONG v. R.

Citation

TSANG KAM CHEONG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC623/1993

Although the court considered that the facts supported a conviction for murder and the plea of manslaughter should not have been accepted, on the constrained basis of manslaughter the offending was of the worst kind justifying the highest available punishment and, given three separate violent episodes, overwhelming evidence and the applicant's dangerousness, the aggregate sentence of 31 years was not excessive and the application for leave to appeal was refused.