Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consecutive and concurrent sentencing

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NONES CARMELITA GALAY

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1081
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR15/2021

The judge's sentence was set aside because he misapplied the sentencing process: he failed to treat aggravating features (prolonged, planned breaches of trust, use of handlers to distance herself, cover‑ups and victim trauma) as enhancements to starting points and improperly gave additional mitigation without adequate evidential foundation. The Court of Appeal recalculated starting points per count, enhanced for aggravating factors, allowed only a one‑third discount for the timely guilty plea, applied the totality principle and imposed a global adjusted sentence, ultimately substituting a tot…
14 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. AHMED KAMRAN

Citation

HKSAR v. AHMED KAMRAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC325/2013

The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because, on the merits, the sentencing judge properly applied the Abdallah guideline, was entitled to adopt a 25-year starting point given the applicant's organizing role and exploitation of a courier, properly applied discounts and a two-year enhancement for international importation, validly ordered part of the concurrent sentences for separate offences to run consecutively, and the applicant's purported assistance was insubstantial; the total sentence of 19 years is not manifestly excessive nor in breach of the totality principle.
3 Mar 2004

HKSAR v. MAK CHI KWONG

Citation

HKSAR v. MAK CHI KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC484/2003

The court held that the trial judge did not err in treating the applicant and other non‑principal offenders together despite differing roles, but did overlook applying the promised reduction for delay to the applicant; accordingly the court reduced each sentence from six to five months and the aggregate from 18 to 15 months.
7 Oct 2003

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHI LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA776/2003

The magistrate erred in principle by not applying the full one-third discount for the guilty plea; applying that discount to the correct starting point of six months yields a four month sentence. The appeal is allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence to four months, with one month concurrent and three months consecutive to the existing sentence.
21 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA707/2000

Appeal allowed in part: the court held that while custodial sentences for repeated copyright infringement were justified, the total immediate sentence of 3 years was excessive given the guilty pleas; the costs award lacked proper basis and was punitive. The court reduced the aggregate custodial term to 2 years, adjusted the consecutive element among the copyright counts, and set aside the costs orders.
16 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. SUEN PING

Citation

HKSAR v. SUEN PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA778/1998

The magistrate correctly applied the doctrine of recent possession and properly assessed witness credibility; the prosecution discharged its burden of proof and there was no misapplication of law or demonstrable bias, so the conviction is upheld. The sentencing judge correctly applied the totality principle and structured concurrency and consecutiveness appropriately; the sentence is not disturbed.
28 May 1997

R. v. LAM CHARM NING

Citation

R. v. LAM CHARM NING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC708/1996

The original sentence was manifestly excessive; correct approach is to determine appropriate starting points for each series, determine proper overall totality after trial (here about 6 years) and then apply a plea reduction to reach the substituted total sentence of 4 years; substituted order: 3 years concurrent for each theft offence and 1 year concurrent for each deception offence, those two sentences to run consecutively.
16 Sept 1994

R. v. LEUNG Nai-hong

Citation

R. v. LEUNG Nai-hong
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA432/1994

In the absence of evidence comparing the relative seriousness of midazolam with methaqualone it would be wrong to uphold a heavier sentence than that approved in R v Chan Chi-man; accordingly the court ordered the appealed drug sentences to run concurrently with the unappealed six months sentence and made the attempted theft sentence consecutive, reducing the total sentence to nine months.
24 Sept 1987

THE QUEEN v. LEE YIN YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE YIN YEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC346/1987

The phrase "in lieu of any other sentence" must be construed to permit a sentencing court to substitute a later centre order for an earlier centre order so that the sentencing court can properly assess suitability for the centre at the time of conviction; however a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction to impose a Training Centre Order that is merely postponed to commence consecutively to an existing DATC order without statutory authority, and such a postponed consecutive order is invalid.