Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent versus consecutive sentencing

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2012

HKSAR v. TRAN VIET THANH

Citation

HKSAR v. TRAN VIET THANH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC54/2011

The Court reaffirmed the established 15‑month starting tariff for illegal immigrants in possession of forged identity cards and held that, absent exceptional circumstances, sentences for possession of a forged identity card and unlawfully remaining should normally run concurrently; prior similar convictions justify upward adjustment (to 18 months for unlawfully remaining in these cases) and partial consecutive months can be applied to reflect distinct offending, and section 83I(2) prevents selective appeals against individual sentences in multi‑count proceedings.
26 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. YIP KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KAM WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC413/2007

The court held that the judge's notional global starting point and partial consecutive sentencing produced a manifestly excessive total for D1 given the two woundings arose in a single, short melee and the injuries were not severe; therefore the wounding sentences should run concurrently yielding 16 months. For D2 the judge failed to sufficiently distinguish his lesser culpability and the limited circumstances of the affray; the 15-month sentence was excessive and was reduced to immediate release (time served).
29 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. Bautista Imelda V

Citation

HKSAR v. Bautista Imelda V
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA148/2000

The Magistrate's sentence of 12 months imprisonment per offence, ordered to run concurrently, was within the sentencing discretion in light of the Appellant's mitigating circumstances and the statutory seriousness of the offences; there was no basis to disturb the sentence on appeal.
31 Jul 1996

R. v. CHAN KUI SHEUNG

Citation

R. v. CHAN KUI SHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC13/1996

While the offences were aggravated by the applicant's position of trust, multiple incidents and some premeditation, the Court reduced the sentences as an act of mercy because the applicant's severe paraplegia and the demonstrated inadequacy of prison facilities for his disability rendered the original sentencing approach excessive; the court adjusted the starting point for the most serious count from four years to 18 months and reduced the other counts to six months to achieve a total effective sentence of 18 months, applying the totality principle and giving weight to guilty pleas and prior…
31 Oct 1989

THE QUEEN v. BERMARD KUIT SHU-YIP

Citation

THE QUEEN v. BERMARD KUIT SHU-YIP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC298/1989

Where multiple counts arise from a single, short-term commercial fraud involving substantial sums, the appropriate approach is to set a global sentence reflecting overall criminality, apply mitigation for plea and cooperation and give concurrency where appropriate; the trial judge erred by mechanically multiplying per‑letter sentences leading to an excessive cumulative sentence.
8 Dec 1988

THE QUEEN v. LAU WING KUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU WING KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1067/1988

The forgery was part of the same transaction as the first theft; therefore it was appropriate to order concurrent sentences rather than a consecutive sentence for forgery, and the appellate court allowed the appeal on sentence and ordered all sentences to run concurrently.
8 May 1987

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TONG KAI MAN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TONG KAI MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR7/1987

The Court held that the assault, criminal intimidation and the perverting the course of justice offences were distinct from the money‑lending offences and therefore should not have been wholly concurrent; it varied the concurrency directions so that certain sentences run consecutively, leaving individual term lengths undisturbed, producing an aggregate of 36 months which was then reduced to 30 months to reflect the review discount.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TRAN VIET THANH

HKSAR v. YIP KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. Bautista Imelda V

R. v. CHAN KUI SHEUNG

THE QUEEN v. BERMARD KUIT SHU-YIP

THE QUEEN v. LAU WING KUEN

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TONG KAI MAN