Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegal entry

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴 VU BICH HUE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA205/2023

The court held the trial judge correctly analysed and accepted the complainant's identification evidence as reliable because the complainant had multiple close and repeated opportunities to observe the appellant despite variable lighting, the alleged inconsistencies were minor or explicable, and together with corroborative facts the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, unlawfully present, provided paid sexual services; the appeal was dismissed.
21 Mar 2024

YOUNIS IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 783
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL175/2020

Because the applicant applied to withdraw his application for leave and nothing remained outstanding in the action, the court was entitled to dismiss the leave application in accordance with the Court of Appeal authority in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
13 Oct 2023

香港特別行政區訴單亞軍

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA172/2023

Admission of the appellant's credible fresh evidence demonstrating boat breakdown, fuel limits and contemporaneous COVID lockdown risks established that his entry and temporary stay in Hong Kong were objectively reasonable and proportionate as necessary to avoid serious risk; on that basis the necessity defence succeeded and the conviction for overstaying was unsafe and quashed.
11 Oct 2023

香港特別行政區訴劉開迅

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2642
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA298/2023

The sentencing judge applied established authorities and appropriate sentencing ranges for the offences, properly exercised discretion in ordering parts of sentences to be concurrent and partially consecutive, and afforded no erroneous or manifestly excessive total sentence; therefore there was no ground to interfere with the 24‑month sentence.
12 Jan 2023

香港特別行政區訴韦炳广

Citation

[2023] HKCA 79
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC71/2022

The Court dismissed the application because the sentencing judge applied established authorities and principles when setting starting points, applying a 6‑month uplift for aggravating features (joint enterprise, use of tools, prior similar conviction, cross‑border offending) and ordering the sentences to run consecutively; there was no error of principle or manifest excess warranting leave to appeal.
26 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴韋家付

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA488/2021

The court held it was an error in principle to raise the sentencing baseline because the appellant's mitigation contained sexualised content that was not directed at any witness or party; accordingly the appropriate sentence for the offence remains the established post‑trial guideline of 22.5 months and the sentence was reduced from 24 to 22.5 months.
17 Jun 2022

香港特別行政區訴 SUWANNACHAIROB ORANUCH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1850
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA125/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly applied the So Man King sentencing guideline, selected an appropriate starting point and applied the one-third guilty plea discount; the appellant's stated motives and family circumstances did not constitute exceptional mitigation warranting a reduced sentence.
17 Jun 2022

香港特別行政區訴 HOANG CONG THUAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA129/2022

The judge correctly applied the 15-month starting point from R v So Man King, lawfully exercised discretion to deduct 35 days administrative detention and to allow a 30-day reduction for self-surrender (netting 390 days), and therefore the sentence was not excessive and the appeal fails.
16 Feb 2022

香港特別行政區訴張桂林

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 513
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA244/2021

The 18‑month sentence was within the applicable appellate guideline for a repeat offender; the appellant's stated mitigation did not amount to a reason to depart from the guideline, and therefore the court would not interfere with the sentence.
24 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. ALI HAIDER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3670
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA443/2021

The Magistrate did not err in law or principle: the offences were distinct, the correct starting point was 22 months and 2 weeks, and making two weeks concurrent under the totality principle was appropriate; the sentence was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.