Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

International element enhancement

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. FONG YAU HEUNG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 876
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC173/2020

The judge did not err in adopting the starting point and in applying a 25% discount for a guilty plea delayed by absconding and a modest discount for limited self-consumption; however, the issue whether a cross‑border "international element" enhancement improperly double counts the statutory offence of importing warrants appellate consideration, and leave to appeal is granted limited to that point.
9 Dec 2020

HKSAR v. COZ TUCTO DELIA

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1013
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC40/2019

The Court allowed the appeal, corrected the one‑third discount calculation and resentenced the appellant. It adopted the starting point of 21 years 6 months, enhanced by 1 year 9 months for the international element to 23 years 3 months, allowed a 2 month reduction for participation in the anti‑drug campaign to 23 years 1 month, and then applied a one‑third discount for the timely guilty plea to reach a sentence of 15 years 4 months imprisonment. The appellant's personal circumstances did not justify further mitigation.
14 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. KO WAI SHING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 746
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC7/2020

Leave to appeal was refused as to conviction on Charge 1 because the Judge was entitled to infer D1 knowingly imported GBL given his admission to ordering and receiving the parcel and the implausibility of the cleaning‑agent explanation; leave to appeal was granted as to conviction on Charges 2 and 3 because there was a reasonably arguable ground that the Judge misdirected himself on possession in a joint‑occupancy context requiring something more than knowledge and acquiescence; leave to appeal against sentence was granted because sentencing guidelines for GBL are unsettled and the internati…
15 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. COZ TUCTO DELIA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1291
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC40/2019

The starting point of 21.5 years was appropriate and the 2-year international enhancement fell within the sentencing judge's discretion, but the judge's reasons for both the enhancement and refusal to discount for participation in the anti-drug campaign were insufficiently explained; additionally the judge made an arithmetic error in applying the one-third discount (correct result 15 years 8 months), and therefore leave to appeal and an Appeal Aid Certificate were granted so the applicant may argue the sentence.
21 Mar 2019

HKSAR v. ZARIPOV EDUARD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 345
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC165/2018

The appeal was dismissed because the minor arithmetic variance in the starting point was insignificant in context and the application of heroin sentencing guidelines to cocaine is settled, justified by experience of harm; enhancement for international trafficking is lawful and proper; the applicant's personal mitigation did not establish exceptional circumstances to reduce sentence, therefore leave to appeal and the appeal were refused.
1 Feb 2019

HKSAR v. FUNDI FURAHA GILES

Citation

[2019] HKCA 154
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC82/2017

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because no cogent reason for delay was given; on the merits the court found the judge had used the correct active narcotic weight (824g) and that the sentence was broadly in line with guidelines despite a lesser-than-appropriate enhancement for the international element; any discount for participation in Father Wotherspoon's campaign is discretionary and limited to a token amount (up to three months) and would not have altered the outcome sufficiently to justify granting leave out of time.
4 Dec 2018

HKSAR v. RWAKIBALE AHEEBWA PETER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 920
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC171/2017

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; sentencing guidelines and international enhancement correctly applied; appellate court found judge erred in subsuming participation in Father Wotherspoon campaign into the guilty plea discount and allowed a token reduction of three months, reducing sentence from 14 years 8 months to 14 years 5 months imprisonment.
23 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. KISAMO DIANA SEMALI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 878
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC43/2018

Application for extension of time was refused because delay of two and a half years was not satisfactorily explained and, on the merits, there was no credible evidence that the applicant made a meaningful contribution to the anti‑trafficking campaign or provided assistance of practical value to authorities; the court accepted Customs' assessment and therefore refused any discount and dismissed the appeal, leaving the original sentence intact.
14 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. CHOI CHUN WO

Citation

[2018] HKCA 384
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC273/2017

The Court held the correct guideline starting point for 5.26g of methamphetamine was 5 years 1 month, enhanced by 3 months for the international element to 5 years 4 months. The narcotic content for self-consumption was assessed at about 1.5g (≈28.5% of 5.26g), which the Court regarded as a "significant proportion" meriting a 12% discount. After reducing the starting point by 12% and then by one third for the guilty plea, the proper sentence is 3 years and 1 month imprisonment. The Court further held that ‘‘significant proportion’’ is a fact-specific threshold and is not fixed at 50%.
29 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. OKAFOR CHARLES CHUKWUEMEKA

Citation

HKSAR v. OKAFOR CHARLES CHUKWUEMEKA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC382/2015

The Court found the Notice of Abandonment was a deliberate and informed act signed and witnessed and the applicant failed to show mistake or exceptional circumstances; there was no credible evidence he provided assistance to authorities; the sentencing starting point and reductions were appropriate; accordingly the nullity application and leave to appeal were refused and a loss of time order of 3 months under s83W CPO was made because the nullity application was wholly unmeritorious and an abuse of process.