Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cooperation with investigators

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 1999

HKSAR v. LAU YEE LAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU YEE LAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA865/1998

The magistrate erred by adopting a totality-first approach; the correct methodology is to assess the proper sentence for each offence (starting point 18 months each), then apply a 50% reduction for substantial assistance, resulting in 9 months per offence, with part concurrency because the offences formed part of the same transaction but the second act increased culpability; aggregate sentence fixed at 12 months.
11 Dec 1993

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM CHIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA427/1993

Conviction appeal dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the appellant would have pleaded guilty irrespective of the ICAC officer's statements (no true causal connection); sentence appeal allowed because the magistrate did not properly address deferment in light of the appellant's unfulfilled promise to give evidence, so the detention order was set aside and sentence deferred until after trial of co-accused with directions for re-sentencing.
3 May 1989

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YUKTA BAHADUR GURUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YUKTA BAHADUR GURUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/1989

The Court refused the Attorney General's applications and upheld the district judge's exercise of discretion: on the facts the case was sufficiently exceptional (full cooperation, early guilty pleas, disclosure of earlier offences, personal and family circumstances, restitution paid, impact on careers) to justify suspended 12‑month concurrent sentences and fines, and the exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong.
3 May 1989

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. ANTHONY ARMITAGE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. ANTHONY ARMITAGE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/1989

The Court held the trial judge did not exercise his sentencing discretion manifestly wrongly; the combination of full cooperation, early guilty pleas, disclosure of further offences, restitution, personal and familial hardship, and limited reputational harm made the case exceptional and justified suspended sentences and fines, so the Attorney General's applications to review the sentences were refused.
25 Feb 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KING YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KING YEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC561/1987

The Court held that although the offending warranted a substantial custodial sentence, the trial judge failed to give sufficient allowance for mitigating factors (early guilty plea, full cooperation, substantial delay and partial repayment); applying proper approach the concurrent sentences of 3 years should be reduced to 2 years' imprisonment on all counts.
18 Mar 1986

THE QUEEN v. TAM SIU LUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TAM SIU LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/1986

The appellate court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the substantial pre-charge delay, the appellant's cooperation with the ICAC, his early guilty plea and significant restitution; these factors justified reducing each three year sentence to two years, to run concurrently.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAU YEE LAI

THE QUEEN v. WONG KAM CHIU

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. YUKTA BAHADUR GURUNG

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. ANTHONY ARMITAGE

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KING YEE

THE QUEEN v. TAM SIU LUN