Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Youth offenders

  • 17 Nov 2000

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI MAN BIU AND OTHERS

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI MAN BIU AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR4/2000

    The Court allowed the prosecution's review: the original sentences were manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle given the gravity of an armed robbery using an imitation firearm in a jewellery and money-exchange shop; youth and unproved or insubstantial cooperation did not provide sufficient mitigation to negate substantial prison terms; a starting point of twelve years was appropriate in all cases and after reductions for plea and other considerations the Court substituted custodial terms of 7.5 years for D1 and 6.5 years each for D2 and D3.

  • 18 Jul 2000

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI-HIM, HERMAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI-HIM, HERMAN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC62/2000

    The Court held the sentences imposed (16 years for D1 and D2, 15 years for D3) were not manifestly excessive given the deliberate use of incendiary devices in a crowded mall causing death and grievous harm, the foreseeability of catastrophic consequences, and the imperative of general deterrence; mitigating factors (youth, lack of personal grudge, alleged peer pressure) did not justify reduction to the extent sought.

  • 28 Jun 1995

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YAU WING HONG

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YAU WING HONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR2/1995

    The Court held that the respondent's age, alleged influence and rehabilitation did not amount to exceptional circumstances to depart from the Mo Kwong-sang guidelines; the Training Centre Order was quashed and concurrent custodial sentences consistent with the guidelines were imposed (six years per count reduced for plea and time served to five years four months).

  • 12 Apr 1994

    NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.

    Citation
    NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC100/1993

    The Court allowed Leung Yu Wing's appeal against his rape conviction because the trial judge failed to differentiate sufficiently between participation in the prior robbery and participation (or agreement to participate) in the subsequent rape; that misdirection made the rape conviction unsafe. The Court adjusted sentences: Chung Yau Tat's sentence was reduced; Leung's robbery sentence was reduced; appeals against sentences by other appellants were dismissed or abandoned as recorded.

  • 18 Jan 1991

    THE QUEEN v. MAN KWONG FAI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. MAN KWONG FAI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC349/1990

    Given the applicants' ages, backgrounds, guilty pleas, supportive families, favourable training/detention centre reports and absence of weapons, the 5 year imprisonment sentences were excessive; the appeals are allowed, the imprisonment sentences quashed and each applicant ordered detained in a training centre as the appropriate rehabilitative disposal.

  • 16 Nov 1988

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAI MAN BING

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAI MAN BING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR16/1988

    For adult unlawful entrants found working in Hong Kong a custodial sentence is the proper response; one-day sentences were manifestly inadequate and on review four adult respondents' sentences were increased to 12 months imprisonment (taking into account the fact of review by the Attorney General); in the case of the 16-year-old Tai Man-bing, whose circumstances and location near Chung Ying Street warranted mitigation, the original sentence was left undisturbed.

  • 16 Nov 1988

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG KWOK PING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG KWOK PING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR17/1988

    For four respondents aged 18 the one-day sentences were manifestly inadequate; having regard to Lam Ping-chun guidance a sentence of 15 months would be appropriate, but on review brought by the Attorney General the Court varied each to 12 months imprisonment. In respect of TAI Man-bing (age 16) the Magistrate properly considered his age and the special border-proximate employment; the Court refused the Attorney General's review and left his original sentence undisturbed.

  • 13 Jan 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHI KEUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHI KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC451/1987

    Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the impugned directions were not misleading and any defects did not render the conviction unsafe; sentence appeal allowed and original four‑year term reduced to three years because the offender's extreme youth and comparative authority warranted a lesser term.

  • 7 Feb 1985

    THE QUEEN v. CHUNG HON PING(D1) AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHUNG HON PING(D1) AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC518/1984

    The Court held that D1's total sentence (5 years for robbery and 6 years for rape, effective total 8 years) was not excessive and refused leave to appeal; the Court granted leave to D3, found his sentence (originally 6 years for robbery) excessive in light of his youth and clear record and reduced it to 4 years imprisonment, declining a training centre order given the seriousness of the offence.

  • 1 Nov 1977

    SHUM TAT-YAN v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    SHUM TAT-YAN v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1129/1977

    Training centre order was set aside and probation for 18 months imposed because the offender was a 16‑year‑old with a clear record and genuine remorse, the thefts arose from a single expedition and were of low value, and the need for general deterrence did not outweigh the offender's interests.