Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case law precedent

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. TSANG BIU SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG BIU SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA405/1998

Because the magistrate had not viewed the videos and therefore could not properly assess their obscenity, the offences should be regarded at the lower end of the seriousness scale and the total sentence was manifestly excessive; accordingly the proper disposal was to order 3 months of the second sentence to run concurrently with the first set, reducing total imprisonment from 12 to 9 months.
1 May 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN TSAN FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TSAN FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA312/1998

The 12 month sentence was wrong in principle because there was no evidence linking possession of the identity card to unlawful remaining in Hong Kong; applying precedent (R v Shamin Nawaz and R v Ghazanfar Iqbal) the appropriate sentence is three months imprisonment and the appellant should be released and repatriated since he has already served an equal or greater period.
1 Oct 1996

R. v. TO PING

Citation

R. v. TO PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA950/1996

The magistrate erred in treating the appellant's age as a legitimate mitigating factor contrary to the guideline in R v So Man-king; notwithstanding that the guideline indicated a 15‑month sentence, the appellate court declined to vary the original concurrent 12‑month sentence and dismissed the appeal.
17 Dec 1986

THE QUEEN v. LAU WAI HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU WAI HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC477/1986

The Court held the sentences were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: mitigating factors were considered and reduced the terms, but the vicious knife attack during the robbery was an aggravating feature that made custodial sentences appropriate under existing precedent; leave to appeal was refused.
28 Sept 1983

THE QUEEN v. LAW CHIK-LEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAW CHIK-LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC612/1983

Court held s.45 is to be read so that the presumption attaches where a person is found in premises in which a dangerous drug was being manufactured or where equipment or material referable to manufacture was found; the trial judge did not misdirect the jury in stating the Crown must prove those elements beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption operates until rebutted; appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.
7 Feb 1973

LUK CHOR SANG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LUK CHOR SANG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC730/1972

Conviction affirmed; sentence varied by limiting the disqualification to private cars and reducing the period to twelve months because Full Court authority permits class-limited disqualification and s.4(2)(A) caps disqualification at twelve months, and the factual circumstances (insurance valid except as to hire or reward and appellant a taxi driver) made limitation appropriate.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TSANG BIU SUM

HKSAR v. CHAN TSAN FAI

R. v. TO PING

THE QUEEN v. LAU WAI HUNG AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. LAW CHIK-LEUNG

LUK CHOR SANG v. THE QUEEN