Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent sentencing

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴蘇偉倫

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 258
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA338/2025

On rehearing the court accepted that returning the wallet to MTR after using one card materially mitigated the first theft count and reduced the appropriate sentence to 6 weeks immediate imprisonment; the second theft count sentence of 4 months immediate imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and is upheld; because the magistrate had ordered concurrent execution, the total immediate sentence remains 4 months. Immediate imprisonment was nonetheless necessary given prior theft convictions and lack of effective deterrence.
24 Jul 2025

香港特別行政區訴 DAO DUY QUANG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA94/2025

The sentencing decisions were not manifestly excessive: the judge properly applied a guilty plea discount, considered aggravating factors including recidivism and reoffending on bail, applied the totality principle by ordering partial concurrency and arrived at a justified aggregate sentence; appeal dismissed.
15 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴陳永忠

Citation

[2025] HKCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC138/2024

Leave to appeal against sentence refused. The Court held the aggregate 4‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive because the original sentencing judge properly applied starting points and uplift factors, correctly weighed the applicant's extensive prior convictions and aggravating features (professional burglar, use of tools, offending on bail, entry into occupied premises at night), and lawfully ordered partial concurrency under the totality principle.
19 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃偉賢

Citation

[2025] HKDC 289
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC334/2022

Apply the established guideline of 32 months for trafficking 5.83g cocaine (within ≤10g band), add 2 months for failure to surrender, reduce total by 20% only because the guilty plea was not timely, order part of the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence already being served (28 months concurrent), resulting in an aggregate custodial term of 35 months; forfeit the surety paid by defendant and guarantor.
23 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴王家偉

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA168/2024

基於兩宗針對年長受害人的嚴重有組織詐騙、上訴人在感化期間再犯及與三合會根深蒂固的聯繫，裁判官在衡量所有報告與更生前景後並無法律或事實錯誤，教導所羈留為最合適且不算過重，故維持原判。
26 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴陳栢燾

Citation

[2024] HKCA 764
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC45/2024

Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or special circumstances warranting bail under s.83R; the Court was not persuaded the trial judge made any material error in assessing credibility or omitted consideration of important matters, and the applicant's asserted new evidence/witnesses and need to seek legal advice did not meet the stringent standards for admission on appeal nor justify release.
11 Jun 2024

HKSAR v. HUI ON LUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 534
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC173/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the sentencing judge misapplied one step of the Herry Jane Yusuph approach and recorded concurrent terms in a technically incorrect manner, the total sentence of 16 years and 8 months for trafficking a total of 2,989 grams of methamphetamine was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant appellate intervention.
9 Jan 2024

香港特別行政區訴 TRAN QUOC LONG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA381/2023

The Court found the sentencing magistrate correctly identified and weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, applied appropriate starting points, increased sentences for recidivism, allowed one-third reduction for guilty pleas, and applied the totality principle to produce a combined immediate custodial term of 10 months; the appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.
1 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. WONG WUN SING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC146/2022

The court rejected the defence request to adjourn for a psychological report because the admitted facts already demonstrated an unhealthy sexual interest in young girls and the judge concluded a report would not materially assist sentencing; mitigation weight was to be given for early pleas but psychiatric assessment was unnecessary.
22 Feb 2023

HKSAR v. KIM JONG WOO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA271/2022

The magistrate was entitled to accept PW1's clear, consistent oral evidence over the redacted personal note D1; the alleged inconsistencies were immaterial or collateral and inadvertence was not pleaded or put at trial; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the total sentence was reduced to six weeks' imprisonment on mitigation and totality grounds.