Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention centre

Legal area

Court

14 Sept 2012

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU SHING KIT

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU SHING KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/2011

Although the sentencing judge erred in principle by adopting an unduly low starting point and over‑relying on rehabilitation, the Court of Appeal dismissed the review because, given the respondent's substantial time already served in custody and the delay in the review process, substituting a term of imprisonment would now be intrinsically unjust; accordingly the training centre order was left intact.
7 May 2004

HKSAR v. LIU ROBIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU ROBIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA336/2004

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's documented breaches of probation legitimately justified the magistrate's decision to impose detention, and the medical inability to perform specific detention exercises did not constitute a valid ground to set aside the sentence given that medical assessment and exemptions were available in the Detention Centre.
14 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. TSANG LOK FU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG LOK FU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA944/2003

Where young offenders face custodial orders but pre-sentence and suitability reports, family support and prospects of employment indicate a realistic chance of rehabilitation, the court may substitute a tailored probation order (with conditions) for detention despite the seriousness of the offence.
9 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. TAM HEI LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM HEI LUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA385/2000

The Court declined to lay down sentencing guidelines because prosecutions under s161 were too few to define the full range of offending; unauthorised access can be akin to burglary and, save in unusual circumstances, custodial sentences (including detention centre sentences) are appropriate for offences under s161, and the detention centre sentences imposed on the 1st and 3rd appellants were not manifestly excessive.
6 Nov 1997

HKSAR v. SO KA KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. SO KA KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA874/1997

The appeal was allowed because the appellant's lesser quantity and lesser degree of obscenity, absence of evidence that he jointly possessed the entire stock, his prior short detention already served and favourable probation/community service reports made a non-custodial disposition appropriate; the detention order was set aside and substituted with a 200-hour community service order.
12 Mar 1997

R. v. NG WING WAI

Citation

R. v. NG WING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA89/1997

A custodial sentence and prolonged remand for a 14 year old selling pirated CDs was inappropriate in principle; the proper disposal was a non‑custodial probation order of 12 months, and procedural failures (failure to seek bail and delays in legal aid/counsel assignment) compounded the error.
30 May 1996

R. v. CHAN MING CHIU

Citation

R. v. CHAN MING CHIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/1996

Given the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's need for supervision demonstrated by probation and training centre reports, and proper credit for early plea, the sentencing judge acted within his discretion; there was no ground for appellate interference, so the Training Centre sentence was confirmed.
19 Jul 1988

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KIN MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KIN MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA525/1988

Conviction was upheld because the magistrate reasonably accepted police evidence on the credibility conflict; however the Detention Centre order was quashed and substituted with a 12-month probation order because the appellant was young, had steady employment and good character indicators, the Probation Officer recommended supervision, the magistrate failed to explain rejecting that recommendation, and the appellant had already served over two months in custody.
31 May 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIM MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIM MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA336/1988

The appeal was allowed and the detention order was substituted with an 18-month probation order because the appellant's youth, first conviction, mitigating circumstances and time already spent in custody meant probation was likely more beneficial than further detention; the magistrate's view was not upheld as the appropriate exercise of sentencing discretion in the circumstances.
21 Nov 1985

THE QUEEN v. WONG PING LEUNG (D1)

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG PING LEUNG (D1)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC383/1985

Given the applicant's youth, background and favourable probation and corrective services reports, and the availability of a Training Centre regime tailored for rehabilitation and post-release supervision, the Court substituted a Training Centre Order for the original 3-year imprisonment; the applicant's preference to remain in prison was not determinative.