Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent versus consecutive sentences

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴鄭志偉

Citation

[2020] HKCA 790
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC50/2019

The court granted leave to appeal against sentence on two arguable grounds: (1) it is open to debate whether the manufacturing starting point must be inflexibly fixed at 1.6–1.8 times the trafficking starting point in cases involving very large quantities; and (2) it is arguable that the sentence for count 1 should not necessarily be ordered to run consecutively with counts 2 and 4 given the differences in location and circumstances of seizure.
16 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. LAM WAN MAN, JANET

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM WAN MAN, JANET
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC52/2014

The abandonment was not a nullity because the applicant's notice and surrounding circumstances demonstrated a deliberate and informed decision; her later assertions were inconsistent and delayed; accordingly the notice of abandonment could not be set aside and the appeal was not revived. Further, the aggregate sentence of 11 years was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, so no appellate intervention was warranted.
27 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD

Citation

HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA716/2014

The court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the magistrate had erred in ordering a partially consecutive sentence for the identity offence; the appropriate approach was to impose 18 months on each offence but run them concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence from 22 months to 18 months. The court also held that time spent in administrative detention at CIC long before the offences did not qualify for deduction under s67A(1A) and therefore declined to deduct that period.
12 Sept 2013

香港特別行政區訴李偉良

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李偉良
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA265/2013

The recorded plea in open court with legal representation, contemporaneous admissions to treating clinicians and the appellant's failure to raise the alleged threats contemporaneously made the allegation of coercion not credible; therefore the guilty plea stood and conviction was affirmed. On sentence, the magistrate's assessment that the offences were serious, involved repeated deliberate misuse of police resources and recidivism was reasonable; the sentencing starting point and reductions produced an overall sentence that was not manifestly excessive and therefore will not be interfered wit…
28 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. GURUNG, RAJENDRA BIKRAM

Citation

HKSAR v. GURUNG, RAJENDRA BIKRAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA55/2012

The order making the 12 months imprisonment consecutive to the life sentence was quashed and replaced with an order that the 12 months run concurrently with the life sentence because a finite sentence cannot be made to run after a life sentence that is in effect, following R v Foy and local authority.
8 Oct 2010

HKSAR v. TSERENDASH CHINBOLD

Citation

HKSAR v. TSERENDASH CHINBOLD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA702/2010

The appellate court found the Magistrate's sentencing approach was within discretion: starting point and plea discount were lawful, the concurrent ordering was permissible, and the sentence, though on the light side, did not warrant interference; appeal dismissed.
30 Apr 2009

HKSAR v. WONG CHIN HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHIN HANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC409/2008

The court allowed the appeal in part, finding the total sentence of 46 months manifestly excessive given the small‑scale syndicate, the applicant's role and guilty pleas, and adjusted the aggregate sentence to 32 months (2 years 8 months) by reordering concurrency and consecutivity so as to achieve a proper totality while upholding that individual transactions were distinct and did not require wholly concurrent sentences.
3 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. MAK CHI HO

Citation

HKSAR v. MAK CHI HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC290/2007

The Recorder did not err: the two robberies were separate deliberate ventures despite temporal proximity, the starting point of 10 years for each count was appropriate in light of the use and pointing of an imitation firearm and relevant authorities, remorse and plea were recognised as mitigation, and the partial consecutive order (3 years consecutive) achieved appropriate totality; appeal dismissed.
5 Jan 2006

HKSAR v. LEUNG PING WA

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG PING WA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1038/2005

The magistrate did not err in considering the appellant's prior relationship and the previous rape complaint because those facts were properly before the court and were relevant to the degree of concern caused and therefore to culpability for loitering; the six month starting point for loitering was appropriate, but the starting point for resisting arrest was excessive and was reduced with part of that sentence ordered consecutive, producing a total effective sentence of five months' imprisonment.
25 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. TAM WA LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM WA LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC215/2004

Quantities seized on the person and at the home should be aggregated; the total heroin amount (11.79g) places the case at the lower end of the 10–50g tariff meriting a 5-year starting point under Lau Tak-ming; the midazolam quantity and the existence of records and price lists did not justify raising the starting point to 7 years; accordingly the original sentences were excessive and were quashed and substituted under s.83I(3)(b) with concurrent terms producing a total of 3 years 4 months imprisonment.