Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Concurrency of sentences

  • 11 Mar 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 鄭文傑及另二人

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 371
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC27/2025

    The Court held there was no error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of sentencing law: the asserted mediating conduct by D1 did not amount to a mitigating feature sufficient to reduce culpability in the context of a premeditated, weapon‑assisted, large‑scale riot; the 7‑year baseline for the riot was an appropriate starting point for these offenders; plea discounts and concurrency orders were properly applied; accordingly permission to appeal against sentence was refused and the original sentences were upheld.

  • 15 Jan 2026

    HKSAR v. SUEN KIN WING

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 27
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC147/2024

    Leave to appeal against sentence was granted on Grounds 2 (quantum of proceeds) and 3 (manifest excessiveness) because those grounds were reasonably arguable; leave was refused on Ground 1 (knowledge of predicate offence) because the judge did not err in relying on the admitted Summary of Facts and particulars to infer the applicant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of fraud/theft and the applicant had been sentenced only for the money laundering offences.

  • 27 Dec 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 劉振奮

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 559
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA235/2024

    The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge correctly selected appropriate starting points (a short period for 21 days overstaying and the Usman Butt starting point for illegal employment), properly applied a one‑third plea reduction, lawfully ordered concurrent execution of sentences, and rejected the appellant's late assertions of coercion as not credible; no error of principle or manifest excess was shown.

  • 6 Feb 2024

    HKSAR v. LEE MING HO

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 150
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC130/2019

    The Court held that (1) the Abdallah supplementary guidelines must be re‑evaluated in light of Herry Jane Yusuph: factors such as international element, use of young persons and seniority ordinarily go to role and culpability (Steps 2–3) and should not be routinely applied as separate fixed enhancements to avoid double counting; previous convictions and Form 8 status remain separate aggravating features to be addressed in the sentencing judge's discretion; (2) the applicant's Notice of Abandonment of his sentence appeal was treated as a nullity because he lacked legal advice and did not form…

  • 23 May 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 林文軒

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 742
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC212/2021

    The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the trial judge acted within his discretion in continuing the trial in the applicant's absence after repeated unexplained absences and inability to contact him, the continuation did not produce unfairness given that major witnesses had already given evidence when the applicant and his counsel were present, the convictions on counts 2 and 3 were supported by reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and the sentencing decision (partial concurrency with total term of 27 months) was within appropriate sentencing principles fo…

  • 30 Oct 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 甘俊傑

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 875
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC168/2019

    The Court held the trial judge's 14-year benchmark for attempted rape was manifestly excessive on the facts; a 12-year starting point properly reflected the gravity given the aggravating features. Applying the admitted one-third guilty-plea reduction produced an 8-year term for count 2. The 3 years 4 months sentence for robbery (count 1) was appropriate but only 1 year of it should run concurrently with the 8-year term for count 2; the remainder and the short sentences for counts 3 and 4 should run consecutively, producing an aggregate sentence reduced from 12 years to 10 years 8 months.

  • 30 Sept 2014

    香港特別行政區 訴 曾瑞麟

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 曾瑞麟
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC66/2014

    The trial judge's factual findings on credibility and the inferences of flight and assistance were reasonable and supported by the evidence; therefore the conviction for non‑residential burglary under joint enterprise is upheld. On sentencing the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's uplift for planning and prior convictions warranted some increase but reduced the burglary term from 3.5 to 3 years while affirming the 16‑month dangerous driving term and ancillary driving disqualification and course; sentences to run consecutively producing a total term of 4 years 4 months.

  • 29 Nov 2007

    HKSAR v. PHAM VAN HUY

    Citation
    HKSAR v. PHAM VAN HUY
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1007/2007

    The court held the 12 month sentence on Charge 1 was not manifestly excessive given the appellant's prior convictions, and that imposing the 2 month sentence on Charge 4 consecutively would be excessive; therefore the sentence on Charge 4 must run concurrently with Charge 1.

  • 22 Nov 2007

    HKSAR v. IU WAI SHUN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. IU WAI SHUN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC66/2007

    The Court held the sentencing judge acted within his discretion in ordering the theft sentence to be partly concurrent and partly consecutive to the burglary sentence in order to achieve correct totality; the overall sentence of 3 years was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offending, the applicant's record and absence of mitigation, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

  • 1 Jun 2007

    HKSAR v. NGAN PIK CHUN, PEGGY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NGAN PIK CHUN, PEGGY AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA279/2007

    Appellants were substantially and actively involved in organised conspiracies to defraud a public housing authority; magistrates properly imposed immediate custodial sentences to reflect gravity and deterrence; the 1st appellant's sentences in the two matters should run concurrently.