Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of sentence

Legal area

Court

6 May 1997

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN SIU WAI

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN SIU WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR11/1996

The judge erred in principle in suspending the 18-month custodial sentence for a serving police officer who perverted the course of public justice; in the absence of abnormal or exceptional circumstances the suspended sentence must be set aside and replaced by immediate custody; allowing a modest discount because the respondent had been at liberty and had already benefited from suspension, the appropriate immediate sentence is 15 months imprisonment.
14 Mar 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN KIN KEUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN KIN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR2/1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN KIN KEUNG
29 Feb 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGAN KAM-MING

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGAN KAM-MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR15/1995

Section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance sets out an exclusive and mandatory sentencing regime for offenders aged 17 to under 25 (imprisonment up to 3 years or detention under the Detention Centre Ordinance); there is no explicit statutory provision permitting substitution of a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order for those mandatory options, therefore the orders detaining the respondents in Drug Addiction Treatment Centres were invalid, the Attorney General's applications for review succeed, the sentences are quashed, and the court substituted detention until the rising of the court.
16 Aug 1994

CHANG CHEN LIU SA v. R.

Citation

CHANG CHEN LIU SA v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC75/1994

The jury was entitled to disbelieve the defendant's claim of ignorance; leave to appeal conviction refused. The deputy judge erred in applying Chan Chi-ming guidelines to cocaine hydrochloride; Lau Tak-ming tariffs apply because cocaine hydrochloride is to be treated on par with salts of esters of morphine for sentencing. Appropriate starting sentence was 20 years; on review the court substituted 16 years' imprisonment for the original 6.5 years.
17 Jul 1992

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG MAN KEI

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG MAN KEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/1992

Backdating the sentence was unlawful; the trial judge could properly have taken the respondent's hardships into account but could not lawfully backdate the term, therefore the Court allowed the review, quashed the two-year backdated sentence and substituted a lawful sentence of 21 months' imprisonment to run from the date of the original sentence.
11 Apr 1989

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI KA LEUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI KA LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR24/1988

The trial judge erred in principle by accepting an unproven high repayment figure and by suspending sentences where proven restitution was insufficient and breach of trust serious; immediate custodial sentences were required and, given separate offences, one year on counts 1 and 2 concurrent and one year on count 3 consecutive (total two years) was appropriate; the Court of Appeal substituted those sentences under s.81A.
29 May 1987

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHING KWONG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHING KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/1987

The Court held the original concurrent sentencing was manifestly inadequate because the five offences were not a single transaction; some sentences should run consecutively. Applying precedent and totality the appropriate aggregate would have been 12 years but, on review, the Court varied the sentences so that Count 2 commences 4 years after Count 1, producing an overall effective sentence of 10 years.

Hong Kong Case Law

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN SIU WAI

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN KIN KEUNG

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGAN KAM-MING

CHANG CHEN LIU SA v. R.

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG MAN KEI

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI KA LEUNG

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHING KWONG