Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causing grievous bodily harm

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. HO MAN HEI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 224
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC127/2024

Leave to appeal against sentence refused because the judge correctly characterized the offences as a bad case of dangerous driving, adopted appropriate starting points, applied only the one-third guilty plea discount as the sole meaningful mitigation, and properly applied the totality principle in ordering limited consecutive periods to reach a 58-month sentence; the applicant's claimed mitigation did not justify further reduction.
16 Mar 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM YING YUEN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR11/2022

Given the presence of tier 3 alcohol aggravation and additional unaddressed aggravating factor that the respondent put his passenger at risk, the original starting point of 18 months was insufficient; a 30-month starting point for Charge 1 was appropriate, reduced to 20 months for plea, further reduced by 3 months for exceptional family mitigation, and a 4-month reduction on review for the dashed hope of imminent release, yielding a substituted custodial term of 13 months; disqualification increased to 3 years under s.36A(6)-(7).
23 Dec 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU WING YIN CHRISTINE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/2018

The Community Service Order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate given the respondent drove through a red light at a pedestrian crossing at near speed, causing serious injury; an appropriate sentence would have been 12 months' imprisonment, but the Court exercised discretion to leave the original order undisturbed because the respondent had completed the Community Service Order and substantial delay had occurred between sentence and review.
24 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. PANG KUN WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG KUN WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC410/2013

The Court held the appellant's driving constituted the most serious category of dangerous driving because he knew the victims were behind his car and repeatedly executed dangerous reversing manoeuvres causing death and grievous injury; the starting points of eight and six years were appropriate and the resulting sentences (after plea and compensation reductions) were not manifestly excessive, so the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
26 Feb 2009

HKSAR v. LAI WANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI WANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC389/2007

The Court held that on the jury's findings the facts proved grievous bodily harm and that section 83A permitted substitution of the conviction to causing grievous bodily harm with intent; the trial judge was entitled to prefer PW1's account that D2 placed the victim in a headlock and that D1 and D2 repeatedly punched his head and face, from which intent to cause really serious injury (GBH) could properly be inferred; sentencing was appropriate and discounts unjustified or excessive were not interfered with.
27 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. JOHN CHUNG KWAN CANTY

Citation

HKSAR v. JOHN CHUNG KWAN CANTY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC405/2003

The convictions were upheld because the trial judge rationally accepted multiple independent identifications supported by adequate opportunity, lighting and corroborating particulars (cap, plaster on nose, role in scuffle), properly rejected the applicant's alibi and explanations, and there was sufficient evidence of acting in concert to render the convictions neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. HO MAN HEI

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM YING YUEN

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU WING YIN CHRISTINE

HKSAR v. PANG KUN WAH

HKSAR v. LAI WANG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. JOHN CHUNG KWAN CANTY