Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manifestly excessive sentence

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴陳轉娣

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA106/2025

On rehearing the court accepted that the offence was a low-value, non‑planned theft involving failure to return found property, and that substantial mitigating factors (advanced age, serious cardiac condition with pacemaker, early plea, restitution of HK$400, first‑offender treatment and six days post‑sentence detention) warranted suspension of the custodial term; accordingly the six‑week immediate sentence was set aside and ordered suspended for 18 months.
14 Jan 2026

HKSAR v. SHA KAI LUN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 51
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC26/2025

The judge correctly identified and applied relevant sentencing principles: he found the applicant's role in drug trafficking to be that of a courier, rejected the self‑consumption contention, adopted appropriate starting points, applied a one‑third plea discount, and lawfully imposed a 10‑month consecutive element for the identity offence. The judge lawfully ordered the total sentence to run wholly consecutively to the earlier 33‑month sentence because the offences were discrete in time and nature and the applicant had absconded; the overall term was not manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal…
6 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. LEONG HOW SENG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 981
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC59/2025

The court granted leave to appeal because there were arguable and potentially material grounds that the sentencing judge may not have given adequate weight to mitigation (notably advanced age and the particular circumstances of the attempted robbery), and that the chosen starting points and discounts (and the consecutive element) could materially affect the overall sentence; accordingly the applicant was permitted to challenge the sentence on appeal.
23 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, FAISAL AHMAD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA223/2025

On rehearing the judge found no exceptional circumstances to depart from the established Court of Appeal guideline (15 months on plea, 22.5 months after trial) and concluded the Magistrate did not err in principle; the sentence of 22 months and 2 weeks was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
3 Apr 2025

HKSAR v. POON CHI KEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 328
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/2024

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the starting point and resulting sentence for the drug driving count was manifestly excessive and that the totality of the overall sentence may be excessive; the factual finding that the consumed drug was not referable to the trafficked drug supported treating the offences as separate but did not preclude review of totality.
23 Oct 2024

HKSAR v. PINTO

Citation

[2024] HKCA 942
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1/2024

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the 26‑month sentence was manifestly excessive and that the 3‑month enhancement for Form 8 recognizance status may not have been justified, thereby warranting full appellate consideration.
5 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴曾天喜

Citation

[2024] HKCA 515
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/2023

The Court held that the sentencing judge gave adequate reasons: the applicant's extensive criminal record and the co-defendant's cooperation justified the disparity and the elevated sentencing benchmarks; there was no basis to conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive or that prosecutorial conduct produced an unfair result, therefore the leave application was refused.
9 Jan 2024

香港特別行政區訴 TRAN QUOC LONG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA381/2023

The Court found the sentencing magistrate correctly identified and weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, applied appropriate starting points, increased sentences for recidivism, allowed one-third reduction for guilty pleas, and applied the totality principle to produce a combined immediate custodial term of 10 months; the appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.
16 Aug 2023

香港特別行政區訴鄭祖輝

Citation

[2023] HKCA 984
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC357/2019

The court held the total sentence of four years was not manifestly excessive and refused leave to appeal. Full concurrency was not required because trafficking and cultivation are different in nature and trafficking increases overall culpability; partial concurrency was appropriate and not open to criticism. Nguyen Thang-loi did not support the applicant's claim for full concurrency.
22 Feb 2023

HKSAR v. CHAK KONG FAI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 202
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/2019

The Court refused to treat the Notice of Abandonment as a nullity because the applicant signed it with an understanding of its nature and effect after sustained advice and communications; his evidence of being misled was not sufficiently credible to show he did not deliberately and informedly abandon the sentence appeal. Consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to reopen the dismissed appeal and, in any event, would have refused leave to appeal the sentence because the total 15 year sentence was not manifestly excessive.