Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Manifest inadequacy

  • 17 Mar 2006

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KONG TUNG SHEUNG

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KONG TUNG SHEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR6/2004

    The Court of Appeal held the original concurrent 2-month sentences were manifestly inadequate given the age of the victim, the confined and vulnerable setting (taxi at night), and multiple non-consensual assaults; the magistrate had given inappropriate weight to an unsubstantiated belief by the respondent about consent/age and thus overlooked true seriousness; the appropriate total sentence would be about 18 months after trial reduced to 12 months for timely pleas, but having regard to the circumstances and time already elapsed the court substituted concurrent 6 months' imprisonment on each c…

  • 19 May 2000

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG YIN TAK AND OTHERS

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG YIN TAK AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR9/1999

    The training centre orders, while originally defensible because time already served plus expected training centre detention equated to a substantive custodial period and allowed rehabilitation, were rendered wrong in principle by subsequent administrative removal of respondents to remand custody (so training centre time would not count), producing unfairness and undermining the sentencing rationale; parity with the adult co-defendant and sentencing principles required substituting determinate prison sentences, and the court (majority) imposed 3 years 11 months imprisonment on each respondent…

  • 11 Oct 1995

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SZE TING WAH

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SZE TING WAH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR1/1995

    The Court held the training centre sentence was a clear departure from established sentencing guidelines and manifestly inadequate given the gravity and scale of the offences; the respondent's age and other mitigation did not justify a non‑custodial outcome. The appeal was allowed, the training centre sentence quashed and custody imposed: counts 1, 3 and 5 six years each; count 2 two years; count 4 six months; sentences to run concurrently such that a total effective term of six years' imprisonment was appropriate under the totality principle.

  • 29 Aug 1990

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MARK ANTHONY SEABROOK

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MARK ANTHONY SEABROOK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR3/1990

    The Court refused the Attorney General's review: accepting the defendant's account (save that he overrode the complainant's right when he took hold of her bra) as a proper basis for sentencing, the fine of $5,000 was not manifestly inadequate and a custodial sentence was not required; although the trial judge did not make the requisite factual determination for sentencing, the Court proceeded to decide the sentence on the defendant's version and upheld it.

  • 13 Jan 1989

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAM KWOK CHUEN

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAM KWOK CHUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR14/1988

    The trial judge erred in principle by imposing three years for simple possession; Hong Kong authority establishes six years as the appropriate guideline on a guilty plea for simple possession of a firearm; after allowing a plea discount the appropriate substituted sentence is five years; accordingly the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and is set aside.