Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manifestly inadequate

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 1983

THE QUEEN v. LAU CHIU-TAK

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU CHIU-TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/1983

The proper test on review of sentence is whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive (not whether the court feels shock or outrage); the Court of Appeal will apply that single test, will respect prior authority except in established exceptions, will apply a presumption in favour of liberty, and will permit the Attorney General to be heard subject to limits (no new evidence to increase sentence).
11 Nov 1972

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI-FAI

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI-FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/1972

The court affirmed that public interest and deterrence are legitimate sentencing considerations but rejected the notion that sentencers may make a primary decision excluding the offender's circumstances; 'manifestly inadequate' in s.81A must be interpreted consistently with established appellate use of 'manifestly' and the Full Court should apply a stringent test and exercise restraint in granting leave to review or increasing sentences on Attorney General applications.
11 Nov 1972

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI-FAI

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI-FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR9/1972

The court held that sentencing must balance offender circumstances and public interest, that courts may impose exemplary deterrent sentences where public interest requires, but must still consider individual circumstances; the phrase "manifestly inadequate" in s.81A carries the same stringent meaning as "manifestly excessive" on appeal so the Attorney General faces a high threshold when applying for review, and review is a procedural right distinct from an appeal warranting judicial restraint.
11 Nov 1972

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHEUNG CHI-MAN

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHEUNG CHI-MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/1972

The Full Court held that sentencing requires weighing all relevant factors; a sentencer must consider both offender and public interest and may not decide a tariff without regard to the individual; "manifestly inadequate" in s.81A is to be read consistently with appellate jurisprudence's "manifestly excessive" standard, imposing a stringent test on Attorney General review applications which should be exercised sparingly.
9 Sept 1972

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM KAM-TAI ALIAS LAM KIM-HUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM KAM-TAI ALIAS LAM KIM-HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC562/1972

The court adopts a stringent test under s.81A: it will only intervene where the sentence is so manifestly inadequate or excessive that it induces a sense of shock or outrage and no judge properly exercising discretion could have imposed it; applying that test to the facts (young first offender, voluntary confession, assistance, probation and prison/commissioner reports), the magistrate's decision to impose 18 months probation was not manifestly inadequate and the review application is dismissed.
21 Aug 1972

RE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

RE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC408/1972

The Full Court held that under ss81A-81B it could quash a manifestly inadequate sentence and substitute any sentence it considered appropriate (including removing suspension); applying that power, the magistrate's sentence was manifestly inadequate on the facts and was replaced with 15 months' imprisonment.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE QUEEN v. LAU CHIU-TAK

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI-FAI

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI-FAI

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHEUNG CHI-MAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM KAM-TAI ALIAS LAM KIM-HUNG

RE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL