Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Maximum penalty

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 1997

R. v. THE BCJ JOINT VENTURE

Citation

R. v. THE BCJ JOINT VENTURE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA47/1997

The maximum fine is reserved for the worst cases; where the offence is not the worst of its kind and there are mitigating factors including a guilty plea and remedial steps, the court must reduce the fine from the statutory maximum and may adopt a comparable starting point then apply discounts — here the court substituted a fine of HKD 10,000 for the HKD 50,000 fine.
27 Nov 1995

R. v. LE QUANG THENG

Citation

R. v. LE QUANG THENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA876/1995

The 12‑month sentence was excessive for this offence; the appropriate sentence is 6 months and must be served consecutively with the appellant's existing sentence for manslaughter.
21 Nov 1995

R. v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

R. v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA747/1995

Appeal allowed in part: the fine of $50,000 was excessive in context; having regard to mitigating factors (notably workers wearing safety harnesses) and the circumstances of the case the appropriate fine is $25,000.
22 Jun 1993

R. v. MOHAMMAD FAISAL

Citation

R. v. MOHAMMAD FAISAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC540/1992

The court held that the offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty under s.76 was one of simple possession and corresponds to s.100(2) of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance, which reduced the maximum penalty to three years; under Article 12 the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the lighter penalty and the concurrent sentences must be varied to effect immediate release.
19 Jan 1993

R. v. NG CHUN KEUNG

Citation

R. v. NG CHUN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC262/1992

The court allowed the appeal in part: the nine year sentence for possession (Section 13) was excessive in light of the applicable pre-Ho Chun authorities and was reduced to eight years; the ten year sentence for using a firearm to resist arrest (Section 17(1)) was not manifestly excessive and was upheld; the sentences are to run consecutively with the second to commence after three years of the first, producing an overall sentence of 13 years; the judge's erroneous statement as to the statutory maximum did not require interference with the ten year sentence.
12 May 1989

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SUEN BUN SCHU

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SUEN BUN SCHU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR7/1989

The fine of $30,000 exceeded the statutory maximum of $20,000 and was therefore unauthorised; the Court varied that part of the sentence to the statutory maximum of $20,000 and left the imprisonment term unchanged.
10 Nov 1987

THE QUEEN v. TSANG CHI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA727/1987

The magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's mitigating factors (plea, age, weapon already in hand); consequently the two-year sentence was excessive for a Section 19 wounding and should be reduced to 12 months imprisonment.
16 Oct 1986

THE QUEEN v. LAM SHUI LEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM SHUI LEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA797/1986

Although the maximum penalty for use of another person's identity card is lower than for forged identity card offences, where the card is used to illegally remain in Hong Kong the offence falls within the higher band of seriousness and a 15 month sentence would normally be appropriate; the court may consider surrounding facts amounting to separate offences in sentencing, but in these appeals the sentences were not increased and the appeals were dismissed.
30 Sept 1983

THE QUEEN v. LEE KWOK-KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE KWOK-KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC697/1983

The applicant's compassionate grounds did not constitute sufficient mitigation to disturb the trial judge's sentence after an appropriate allowance for the plea had already been made; there was no substance in the appeal and leave is refused; loss of time of 100 days is directed.
12 Feb 1976

HUI CHI-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUI CHI-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC133/1976

The magistrate's imposition of nine months on the first charge was an obvious slip that exceeded the statutory maximum of three months for that offence; the proper corrective exercise is to reallocate the sentences so that the first charge is three months and the second nine months, with both sentences to run concurrently, thereby giving effect to the magistrate's evident intention within statutory limits.