Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Electoral fraud

  • 25 Mar 2014

    HKSAR v. TAI HIN WING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TAI HIN WING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA108/2013

    The polling officers gave admissible lay evidence about checking ID numbers and faces and did not give inadmissible expert or identification evidence; the magistrate was entitled to infer from the near identical registration forms and the officers' unchallenged checking that the Appellant submitted the 2nd Form and attended the polling station; the conviction was safe and the immediate custodial sentence of 3 months was appropriate and not excessive given precedent on vote planting.

  • 27 Aug 2013

    香港特別行政區 訴 麥蘭清及另一人

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 麥蘭清及另一人
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA391/2013

    Given the admitted facts both appellants were equally culpable despite different charge formulations; good character did not constitute sufficient mitigation in electoral fraud cases requiring deterrence; a two‑month immediate custodial sentence for each was not manifestly excessive and the appeals are dismissed.

  • 15 Apr 2013

    HKSAR v. YIM HOI MAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIM HOI MAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA616/2012

    Lai Wai Cheong establishes the sentencing framework: deterrent immediate custody of two months or more for electors engaging in vote planting unless very special circumstances exist; applying that framework to the facts, there were no very special circumstances here, the Magistrate reasonably started at three months and after one‑third plea reductions imposed two months imprisonment for each appellant, and those sentences are not excessive or wrong in principle.

  • 15 Apr 2013

    香港特別行政區 訴 張瑞冰及另四人

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 張瑞冰及另四人
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA628/2012

    Immediate imprisonment for electoral fraud (種票) is appropriate to achieve deterrence and to protect electoral integrity; the sentencing judge did not err in ordering imprisonment for the second to fifth appellants; however, where a specific appellant demonstrates exceptional mitigating circumstances (first appellant: influence by spouse and serious family hardship) a reduction from 2 months to 6 weeks is justified.

  • 15 Apr 2013

    HKSAR v. YIM SZE MING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIM SZE MING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA610/2012

    Lai Wai Cheong establishes that vote planting warrants immediate custodial sentences of two months or more for electors absent very special circumstances; the Magistrate properly applied this guideline, found no very special circumstances, and the appellate court affirmed the two-month sentences.

  • 26 Mar 2013

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳月新

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 陳月新
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA603/2012

    The court held the affidavits were not fresh or outcome-determinative and refused admission; kinship to the candidate and alleged herd pressure did not amount to sufficient mitigation; the sentencing benchmark of three months and the resultant two-month immediate custodial sentences were within established principle and not excessive, therefore the appeals were dismissed and original sentences upheld.

  • 16 Jan 1997

    THE QUEEN v. CHIANG YU-TUI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHIANG YU-TUI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC133/1996

    The Court held that the trial judge had properly and carefully evaluated the accomplice evidence so the conspiracy conviction (count 1) was safe; the evidence taken as a whole permitted a conviction on count 4 despite lack of voice recognition; count 3 was duplicitous but caused no prejudice and the conviction was inevitable, so the Court applied the proviso in s.83(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance and upheld the conviction; appeals dismissed accordingly.