Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consecutive versus concurrent sentences

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. AGUILAR VILLANUEVA WILLIAN RAFAEL

Citation

HKSAR v. AGUILAR VILLANUEVA WILLIAN RAFAEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC485/2012

Leave to appeal out of time was granted as the applicant filed promptly after learning of his co-accused's success; on the merits the Court found the total sentence of 3 years was manifestly excessive when viewed against the inferred starting point and comparable authorities and substituted shorter consecutive increments (4 months on charges 2–5) producing an aggregate sentence of 28 months, retaining recognition of aggravating factors but applying the totality principle.
13 Feb 2007

HKSAR v. CHAU LAP PUI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU LAP PUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC358/2006

Leave granted and appeal allowed in part: the court reduced the sentence for possession of CS spray from 20 to 4 months because the starting point was excessive and the judge should not have rejected the applicant's explanation without a Newton hearing; the court ordered that the full 8-month (theft) and full 20-month (burglary) terms run consecutively to other sentences, resulting in a total custodial term of 32 months; sentencing adjustments must not be offset by enhancing other proper starting points to compensate for error.
28 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. FUNG CHUN YI

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG CHUN YI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA133/2006

The magistrate's findings that the appellant's interview was freely and voluntarily made and that the prosecution witnesses were credible were open to the court on the record and thus the convictions were upheld; however the magistrate erred in assessing the weight of antecedents and the appropriate starting point for sentence on the trafficking charge, so the sentence for trafficking was reduced to 24 months while the two-year sentence for keeping a divan was affirmed but ordered with 6 months to run consecutively to reflect totality, producing an overall effective sentence of 30 months.
19 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. LAU YUK LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU YUK LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA912/2002

The appellant's handwritten abandonment was clear and did not meet the legal test to be treated as a nullity; accordingly the application to restore the appeal was dismissed, and on the merits the 15 month consecutive sentence was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
3 Sept 2002

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI HAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI HAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC102/2002

The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: a two‑year starting point per counterfeit possession was justifiable given the statutory maximum and the ongoing harm, a 40% reduction for guilty plea and assistance was appropriate, the judge applied the totality principle to the aggregate sentence, and therefore the aggregate sentence for the first and second charges was not manifestly excessive.
23 Feb 2000

HKSAR v. LAI MEI FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI MEI FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC614/1999

The court held that the trial judge's overall sentencing exercise was lawful and appropriate: a three year starting point per offence (after plea reductions) was justifiable even though the judge omitted an initial step outlined in HKSAR v Wan Sheung sum because applying that step would have produced the same result; the sentences were properly ordered to run consecutively because the second offence was committed while on bail the following day; totality was considered and an aggregate term of four years was appropriate; therefore the application to vary to concurrent sentences was dismissed.
7 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. SIU CHUN MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. SIU CHUN MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC329/1999

The Court allowed the appeal in part: the judge's 4-year starting point for domestic burglary was excessive and was reduced to 3 years (yielding 2 years 3 months after one-quarter discount); the indecent assault on a 9-year-old warranted a higher starting point of 5 years (reduced by one-quarter to 3 years 9 months); the wounding sentence was reduced to 12 months (two-thirds of 18 months); all sentences were ordered to run consecutively because the offences were separate and distinct; the Court exercised its powers under Section 83I Cap.221 to quash and replace the sentence on count 2, result…
27 May 1997

R. v. YU KAI SHING

Citation

R. v. YU KAI SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1333/1996

Imposing an additional consecutive sentence for possession of a minute quantity (0.08 g) of heroin found on the appellant at a remand centre was wrong in principle; the appropriate disposition is a reduced sentence of one month imprisonment to run concurrently with the existing sentence.
16 Mar 1995

R. v. LEE CHI PING

Citation

R. v. LEE CHI PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA4/1995

The magistrates erred in permitting consecutive sentences across separate charge sheets to aggregate to 4.5 years contrary to the statutory limit in s.57 for a permanent magistrate; therefore the sentences in TMC 9496, 9497 and 11428 must run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the 18 months sentence in TMC 8154, reducing the aggregate to 3 years.
12 Apr 1994

FESTUS NNAMDI OFFOR @ FREDERICK OSAWARU and Another v.. R.

Citation

FESTUS NNAMDI OFFOR @ FREDERICK OSAWARU and Another v.. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC490/1993

The Court upheld the two year sentence for trafficking in 11.29 kg of cannabis but held that the 1.23 g sample was part of the same transaction and not a separate incident; accordingly the lower court erred in ordering the small-sample sentence to run consecutively and the sentences for the first appellant were ordered to run concurrently.