Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 蘇偉倫

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.

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Found property
• Use of credit card
• Mitigation
• Previous convictions
• Concurrent sentencing

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 DAO DUY QUANG

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.

Source excerpt

• Theft (bicycle)
• Recidivism
• Concurrent sentencing
• Guilty plea discount
• Bail breach as aggravating factor

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 陳永忠

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.

Source excerpt

• Domestic burglary
• Attempted burglary
• Totality principle
• Concurrent sentencing
• Aggravating factors
• Guilty plea discount

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 黃偉賢

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.

Source excerpt

• Drug trafficking
• Failure to surrender to custody
• Concurrent sentencing
• Forfeiture of surety
• Guilty plea discount

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 王家偉

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。

Source excerpt

• Handling proceeds of crime
• Triad involvement
• Rehabilitation and detention centres
• Concurrent sentencing
• Probation cancellation

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 陳栢燾

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.

Source excerpt

• Bail pending appeal
• Assessment of appeal prospects
• Credibility of witnesses
• Admission of new evidence on appeal
• Concurrent sentencing
• Criminal procedure ordinance s.83r

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. HUI ON LUNG

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC173/2023

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against a 16-year-8-month sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine, finding it was not manifestly excessive.

• Trafficking in dangerous drugs
• Sentencing guidelines for methamphetamine (ice)
• Guilty plea discount
• Concurrent sentencing
• Role enhancement
• Drug-trafficking-sentencing

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 TRAN QUOC LONG

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.

Source excerpt

• Recidivism
• Guilty plea discount
• Totality principle
• Concurrent sentencing
• Mitigation
• Aggravating factors

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. WONG WUN SING AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCCC146/2022

The court heard mitigation for the 2nd accused in a child-sex case, but refused an adjournment for a psychological report, finding it unlikely to assist sentencing.

• Burglary
• Indecent assault
• Indecent conduct towards a child
• Making pornography
• Plea of guilty
• Mitigation

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. KIM JONG WOO

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA271/2022

The High Court dismissed a conviction appeal for two counts of indecent assault but reduced the sentence from eight weeks to six weeks' imprisonment.

• Indecent assault
• Credibility of complainant
• Prior inconsistent statement
• Browne v dunn rule
• Concurrent sentencing
• Workplace sexual misconduct

Read case analysis