Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disparity of sentences

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. WONG DI CHUN (formerly known as LAU YIN CHUN)

Citation

[2026] HKCA 892
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC77/2025

The judge's factual findings that the applicant instigated and masterminded two distinct conspiracies facilitating unauthorised possession and use of mobile phones and smuggling contraband cigarettes justified an 18-month starting point for each charge and a partly consecutive sentence; there was no misapplication of sentencing principles and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was therefore properly refused.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. MAN YIU PUN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 344
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC198/2018

Leave to appeal against convictions was granted because it was reasonably arguable the trial judge erred by relying on matters that were irrelevant or improperly weighed when inferring the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime; leave to appeal sentences was refused because no reasonably arguable error was shown in the sentencing exercise and any perceived disparity was attributable to different charges and prosecutorial charging decisions.
27 May 2014

HKSAR v. SIDDIQUE SHAHID

Citation

HKSAR v. SIDDIQUE SHAHID
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC386/2012

The Court held the trial judge correctly set a 17-year starting point for the trafficking count, the 30% discount for the applicant's late guilty plea was generous and no further discount was due for information that proved useless; the disparity with the co-defendant's lesser sentence was justified by the co-defendant's offer to assist the prosecution, and therefore leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
15 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. WONG KAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC520/2011

Court adjusted and substituted specific starting points and individual sentences where the original judge's starting points were unjustified in part; upheld that aggravating factors and criminal record can justify uplift from guideline starting points; disparity with a co-offender sentenced separately did not justify interference; totality principle justified partially consecutive terms for first applicant but overall sentences were modified for proportional differentiation, resulting in first applicant's total remaining 12 years and second applicant's total reduced to 8 years 8 months.
26 Feb 2003

HKSAR v. HUI SZE PING

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI SZE PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC426/2002

The sentence of 12 years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the applicant's central role as mastermind, procurement and provision of a pistol and ammunition, selection of a vulnerable victim, and the real risk of serious harm; the plea was properly reflected by a reduction to 12 years and the disparity with other judges' sentences did not render this sentence inappropriate.
14 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN KA PO JOSEPH

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA PO JOSEPH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC29/2000

Judge Wright lawfully set a starting point consistent with contemporaneous tariff (citing AG v Chan Sik-ming), discounted it by 20% for a guilty plea delayed by the applicant's three-year absconding, and correctly applied sentencing principles; disparity with sentences imposed by another judge did not show an error of principle, so the four-year sentence was appropriate and must be upheld.
10 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. SAM WAI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. SAM WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC226/1999

The judge erred in taking different starting points because he based the distinction on the defendants' parts in the sham office charade rather than their relative blameworthiness in planning, financing and executing the conspiracy; therefore D1's starting point should equal D2's and his sentence reduced accordingly.
9 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC496/1997

The judge failed to give adequate individualized reasons to justify a two-year higher starting point for the applicant compared with his co-defendant on the identical 1st count; absent sufficient cause for the disparity the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant's starting point from 27 to 25 years, applied the appropriate plea discount and substituted a sentence of 16 years 8 months to run concurrently with the 14-year sentence on the 2nd count.
6 Jan 1978

CHUN MAN-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHUN MAN-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1044/1977

The Court held that disparity with a co-defendant's sentence imposed by another judge is not in itself a ground for reduction in Hong Kong, but the trial judge had failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's lesser role; accordingly the appropriate sentence was reduced from five years to four years' imprisonment.
3 Jul 1974

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM PUN-HO ALIAS LAM HO

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM PUN-HO ALIAS LAM HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR1/1974

Because the respondent was the initial and essential contact, actively participated by altering licence photographs and received significant payment, his conduct was sufficiently serious and comparable to the co-defendant to render the original non-custodial sentence inadequate; balancing aggravating and mitigating factors the correct sentence is imprisonment of not more than four months on each count to run consecutively, with any fines already paid to be returned.