Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal against sentence

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

香港特別行政區訴梁建邦

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2607
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA163/2025

The appeal is dismissed because on full re-examination of the evidence the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution proved the offence: CCTV was inconclusive and did not displace the complainant’s stable account of being rubbed for about 30 seconds by an erect penis; the trial judge lawfully and reasonably assessed credibility and reliability; remand for psychiatric reports was within judicial discretion and for legitimate sentencing purposes; the custodial sentence of 2 months and activation of the prior 2-month suspended term were proportionate given the offence and prior…
25 Feb 2026

香港鐵路有限公司訴吳兆有

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1177
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA133/2025

經重審全部證據後，法庭確信控方已在毫無合理疑點下證明三項附例罪行，裁判官的事實評價並無不當，且合計罰款HK$4,000在本案情況下並不屬明顯過重，因此駁回上訴，維持定罪及判處。
23 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴成柏傑（又名李杰明）及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKCA 85
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC72/2025

The trial judge's credibility findings and identification of D3 from CCTV/audio and PW1 evidence were reasonable and sufficient to establish joint enterprise liability beyond reasonable doubt; the attack was retaliatory not self‑defence; psychiatric evidence supported an indeterminate hospital order for D1; the sentences imposed, including D3's as instigator, were within appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.
11 Jul 2025

香港特別行政區訴孫偉力

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA348/2024

上訴人之認罪在庭上為自願且明確，裁判官已就自用情況作出確認；就量刑而言，罰款HK$1,000元對首次違法者已屬適當且不屬明顯過重；法院亦無權為達致不留案底而改判，因此上訴人關於定罪及判刑之上訴均應被駁回。
25 Jun 2025

HKSAR v. CHOI WING KA

Citation

[2025] HKCA 599
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC222/2023

Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the CCTV ground was not reasonably arguable given trial conduct (defence did not raise or pursue the camera issue at trial, there was no evidence of a recording function, and the jury were properly directed); leave to appeal against sentence was granted out of time because subsequent authoritative guidance (Huang Ruifang) would materially reduce the appropriate starting point for sentence and refusal would deny a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal in the interests of justice, and an appeal aid certificate was granted.
1 Apr 2025

HKSAR v. RAJESH, NARAIN PARMAR

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2715
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA505/2024

On rehearing the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant struck the complainant multiple times as described by the independent eyewitness and consistent with the medical report; the appellant's cautioned statement was unreliable; accordingly the conviction was upheld and the 6 week immediate custodial sentence was found not to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
24 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. LAM TSZ HIM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 190
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC87/2024

Leave to appeal against conviction for D2 and D4 refused because the judge correctly assessed the evidence, applied the Ghosh test and permissibly drew reasonable inferences from the circumstantial and documentary evidence; leave to appeal against sentence granted because sentencing differentiation, assessment of loss and mitigation raised reasonably arguable issues.
14 Jan 2025

香港特別行政區訴陸志榮

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA407/2024

The magistrate properly considered the appellant's guilty plea, lack of prior convictions and personal mitigation including health and financial circumstances; the $200 fine (after one‑third discount from a $300 benchmark) was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and therefore the appeal is dismissed; the fresh medical records were unnecessary as the sentencing court had been aware of the relevant circumstances.
30 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴何玉清

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2183
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA335/2023

Although the appeal succeeded in reducing the monetary penalty, the court exercised its discretion under Cap 492 s.8(b) and refused to award costs because the appellant (through his counsel at the review) failed to place his financial circumstances before the magistrate, making the appeal avoidable and disentitling him to costs in the circumstances.
2 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴廖漢英

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2522
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA158/2023

The licence had ceased to be effective from 7 May 2021 by virtue of the company notification and failure to file a renewal within the 45‑day statutory period; the admitted facts and documentary evidence established operation of money service without a licence contrary to Cap.615 s29; the second appellant's admissions were voluntary and sufficient to support conviction; the sentences (HK$3,000 per charge) were within a permissive and appropriately deterrent range given the scale, statutory purpose and mitigation; therefore convictions and sentences were upheld and fresh evidence rejected.