Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Arbitrariness

  • 21 Mar 2019

    HKSAR v. ZARIPOV EDUARD

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 345
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC165/2018

    The appeal was dismissed because the minor arithmetic variance in the starting point was insignificant in context and the application of heroin sentencing guidelines to cocaine is settled, justified by experience of harm; enhancement for international trafficking is lawful and proper; the applicant's personal mitigation did not establish exceptional circumstances to reduce sentence, therefore leave to appeal and the appeal were refused.

  • 11 May 2012

    ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

    Citation
    ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL34/2012

    The Board's refusal to consider increasing the BHR beyond 130 mPD was quashed as arbitrary because the material before the Board did not establish that the permitted plot ratio/GFA (notably GFA from EVA and road setback equivalent to about 10 mPD) could be accommodated at 130 mPD, and both the 10 m NBAs and 20 m BG were quashed as arbitrary because the CO2 Air Ventilation Assessment relied on a narrow methodology that did not justify those specific dimensions; the restrictions lacked the cogent evidence required for measures that substantially limit development rights.

  • 11 May 2012

    ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

    Citation
    ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL62/2011

    The Board's refusal to consider raising the BHR beyond 130 mPD was quashed because the material before the Board did not demonstrate that the 130 mPD BHR permitted full use of the site's GFA (notably GFA from slope, EVA and road setback requiring about 10 mPD). The 10 m NBAs and 20 m BG were quashed as arbitrary because the CO2 AVA and the evidence provided were inadequate to justify those specific dimensional restrictions; the Board must justify such restrictive measures with cogent, proportional evidence. The matters are remitted to the Board for re-consideration in accordance with these le…

  • 18 Jul 2006

    SO WAI LUN v. HKSAR

    Citation
    SO WAI LUN v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC5/2005

    Section 124 of the Crimes Ordinance does not violate equality or liberty guarantees: the legislative choice to criminalise only the male is justified by genuine need, rationality and proportionality, and imposing absolute liability for unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16 is not arbitrary given the protective purpose and deterrent effect; therefore s.124 is constitutional and the appellant's conviction is upheld.

  • 24 Mar 2006

    TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

    Citation
    TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL18/2005

    The exclusion of mandatory life prisoners from the statutory scheme requiring specification of minimum terms is not unconstitutional given the legislature's lawful decision to treat adult murder as uniquely severe; the Board's review of mandatory life sentences is administrative (advisory to the Chief Executive on clemency) not judicial, so no automatic entitlement to an oral hearing exists and the Board's brief reasons were adequate; accordingly the Board's decision of 3 November 2004 stands and the judicial review is dismissed.