Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Drug offences

  • 2 Aug 2007

    HKSAR v. MOK YIU KAU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MOK YIU KAU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC256/2006

    Because sentencing for ketamine had in practice been tied to the Lee Tak Kwan ecstasy guidelines prevailing at the time of the offence, imposing a sentence greater than that practice allowed would breach the principle that a heavier penalty must not be imposed than was applicable at the time; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to reflect the prevailing guideline-influenced practice.

  • 9 Mar 2000

    HKSAR v. NG TSZ HONG DEOLOSS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NG TSZ HONG DEOLOSS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC126/1999

    Given the unresolved factual uncertainty about movements and surveillance, and recognizing the applicant's apparent genuine attempt to assist and testify despite risks and procedural errors by the prosecution, the Court concluded additional credit was warranted and therefore reduced the starting-point sentences accordingly, reducing the overall sentence from five years to three years nine months.

  • 31 Mar 1987

    THE QUEEN v. NG YUK TONG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. NG YUK TONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC486/1986

    The appeal was allowed only as to sentence: although the original two year sentence fell within the guideline range for the quantity seized, the defendant's advanced age, long-term addiction and caregiving responsibilities were real mitigating factors warranting reduction of the sentence to one year; weak health was not treated as a decisive judicial mitigation point.

  • 4 Nov 1982

    RE CHIU KWOK-KEUNG

    Citation
    RE CHIU KWOK-KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1978/1982

    Given the large quantity of drugs and manufacturing paraphernalia found at the premises, the potential operation of the presumption of involvement for those present, the seriousness of the offences and likely substantial sentences, and the real risk of flight, the magistrate erred in granting bail and the High Court must remand the accused in custody pending trial.