Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention centre order

Legal area

Court

21 Jun 2021

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIP WAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 794
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/2021

The magistrate’s probation order was legally inadequate because she failed to demonstrate proper application and weighing of the sentencing principles applicable to a young offender who committed serious public order-related offences; given the admitted facts, context of riot, possession with intent and the DC/RC/TC suitability recommendation, the appropriate sentence was detention in a Detention Centre, and the probation order was set aside and replaced by detention.
23 Feb 2018

香港特別行政區訴翁耀雋

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA22/2018

The appeal court held there was no procedural unfairness because appellant instructed counsel not to wait for the probation officer report and the sentencing judge reasonably considered appellant's history, breaches of probation, drug dependence, the seriousness of the offence and injury caused; the detention centre order and ancillary orders were not manifestly excessive and therefore the sentence was affirmed.
23 Oct 2008

HKSAR v. CHONG TSZ HO BILLY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG TSZ HO BILLY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA814/2008

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to the medical finding that the appellant was not drug-dependent and to his status as a young first offender; the sentencing magistrate should have considered non‑custodial supervision with conditions (probation, counselling, random urine tests) as a viable alternative. Given the time already spent in custody, the Detention Centre order was set aside and replaced with a sentence calibrated to allow immediate release.
18 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHIN HONG

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHIN HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA487/2008

The Court upheld the Magistrate's finding that the offence was serious, the appellant's assistance was not of value and his prior detention resulted from bail default and was not mitigating; the Magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion and the Detention Centre Order was not excessive, therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
8 Mar 2006

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1184/2005

The appeal was allowed because materially different evidence (post-sentence probation report showing genuine remorse and behavioural change plus time already served) rendered a probation order of 18 months with specified conditions the appropriate disposal instead of the earlier detention centre order.
16 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. CHENG, KWUN YIP

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG, KWUN YIP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1251/2005

Given the serious injuries and indiscriminate brandishing of a paper cutter, the Magistrate did not err in refusing a community service order, in adopting a rehabilitative Detention Centre Order (thereby reflecting mitigation and guilty plea) and the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
10 Dec 2002

HKSAR v. LEE KWONG LAP

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWONG LAP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1117/2002

The magistrate did not err in principle in accepting the Young Offender Assessment Panel's recommendation and imposing a detention centre order given the appellant's violent propensity, prior similar threat, significant property damage and violent conduct while on remand; the detention order was not manifestly excessive and was in the appellant's best interests.
30 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. NG YU SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. NG YU SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1146/2001

The appeal was allowed because the factors were evenly balanced, the appellant was young and had a clear record, the probation service recommended probation, and a deterrent detention centre order was inappropriate; the detention centre order was quashed and replaced with an 18‑month probation order with conditions.
9 Mar 2001

HKSAR v. WONG HO FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HO FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA174/2001

The Magistrate lawfully exercised discretion to obtain and rely on pre-sentencing reports; the Detention Centre Order was within statutory power (Cap.239 s.4), consistent with established sentencing principles summarized in Choi Sai Lok, and was not manifestly excessive on the facts and reports; therefore the appeal against sentence fails.
6 Feb 2001

HKSAR v. YEUNG SING HEI

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG SING HEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA933/1999

Section 7 of the Detention Centre Ordinance (Cap 239) operates to lapse an existing detention order upon imposition of a non‑suspended term of imprisonment; therefore, the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal is academic insofar as the detention order is concerned because he will serve the prison sentence imposed in the District Court.