Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deterrent sentencing

Legal area

Court

18 May 2021

HKSAR v. LO KIN MAN (盧建民)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 18
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC12/2020

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed because the questions advanced were fact-specific complaints about the length of the individual sentence, not questions of law of general importance warranting interference; established sentencing guidelines (Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung) remain authoritative and there was no basis to conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. LO KIN MAN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 646
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC164/2018

The court refused certification: it held that the common purpose element of unlawful assembly need not be an ulterior objective distinct from the mens rea to breach the peace, and that the sentencing questions raised were not reasonably arguable points of law of great and general importance because riot sentencing is deterrence-focused and fact-specific; accordingly the Notices of Motion for certification were dismissed.
8 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. BALI, SHARAN PAL SINGH

Citation

HKSAR v. BALI, SHARAN PAL SINGH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA425/2016

The appellant's failure to provide particulars was found to be deliberate and, given his repeat offending record, a deterrent sentence was appropriate; however the original fine of $9,000 exceeded the statutory maximum of $10,000 in its effective starting point and therefore was manifestly excessive and must be reduced to $6,000 taking into account the guilty plea and previous record.
27 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. TSANG CHO KIU

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG CHO KIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/2014

Deterrent sentences were not inappropriate in this case given the seriousness of sexual offences against children and public interest in deterrence and protection; the judge did not err in his starting points, reductions for guilty plea, or in imposing part-consecutive sentences to reflect overall culpability; the sentences and overall term were not manifestly excessive and the application was dismissed.
15 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. KULEMESIN YURIY AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. KULEMESIN YURIY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC19/2010

The Court held the trial judge erred in imposing deterrent sentences where individual deterrence was not required given appellants' good character and exceptional circumstances; the judge's failure to state starting points required the Court to identify appropriate starting points and adjust sentences: 1st appellant starting point 21 months less 3 months discount = 18 months; 3rd appellant starting point 4 months less 1 month = 3 months but immediate release ordered; costs awarded to 2nd and 4th appellants whose convictions were quashed.
15 Apr 2011

HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA970/2010

The court found the one year sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, noting lack of triad or violence, doubtful reliance on hearsay about extortion, absence of identified background justifying a deterrent sentence and the appellant's time served; the sentence was reduced to effect the appellant's immediate release.
11 Nov 2008

HKSAR v. WONG KWONG WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KWONG WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA856/2008

The magistrate properly preferred PW1's evidence over the appellant's after careful consideration and caution given PW1's bad character; medical evidence linked the mop to the injuries; there was sufficient evidence to convict; the four-month custodial sentence as deterrence for violence against an elderly tenant was appropriate, so the appeal on conviction and sentence must be dismissed.
2 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. WANG HUI HUI

Citation

HKSAR v. WANG HUI HUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA533/2008

Given prevalence of the offence and the appellant's longer period of unlawful employment, a starting point above the precedent was justified and a reduction for guilty plea to 3 months imprisonment was appropriate; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. GUO JINGXING

Citation

HKSAR v. GUO JINGXING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA15/2006

The application for leave to appeal out of time is refused because the asserted humanitarian grounds do not materially alter the circumstances known to the applicant when he entered Hong Kong and do not justify interfering with sentences that were not excessive; the magistrate took a lenient view and reduced sentences appropriately in light of plea and facts, and the deterrent rationale from Li Chang Li supports upholding the sentences.
6 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. IP MING

Citation

HKSAR v. IP MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA835/2005

The 16‑month custodial sentence is appropriate and not manifestly excessive given the substantial heroin quantity (14.06 g), operation of a non‑small divan, presence of 15 persons, the appellant's 13 prior convictions including drug offences and his absconding while on bail; the appeal is without merit and is dismissed.