Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Mitigation and youth

  • 18 Mar 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳能鵬

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 317
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA283/2019

    Appeal allowed in part: the absence of extended oral reasons at sentencing did not vitiate the sentence because the appellant had legal representation; the triad-membership offence was of low gravity and required a lower starting point, resulting in a reduced sentence for that count to 3 months; the sentencing judge made an arithmetic error in applying the guilty-plea reduction to the drug-trafficking starting point and the correct post-plea sentence for the drug count is 16 months (not 18); applying concurrency principles the court ordered one half of the triad sentence to run concurrently w…

  • 13 Mar 2017

    HKSAR v. TSE WAI HEI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSE WAI HEI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC253/2016

    The judge correctly applied established sentencing authorities for ketamine trafficking and properly adopted a 17-year starting point for approximately 1.8kg of ketamine, reduced by one-third for the guilty plea, producing a sentence of 11 years 4 months; the applicant's role as a courier and his youth or family circumstances did not justify a greater discount and there was no error justifying appellate interference.

  • 30 Nov 2001

    HKSAR v. NG YU SUM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NG YU SUM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1146/2001

    The appeal was allowed because the factors were evenly balanced, the appellant was young and had a clear record, the probation service recommended probation, and a deterrent detention centre order was inappropriate; the detention centre order was quashed and replaced with an 18‑month probation order with conditions.

  • 31 Jan 1997

    R v. KONG KIN MAN

    Citation
    R v. KONG KIN MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR13/1996

    The District Judge's detention centre order was ultra vires because s4(4) required prior notification by the Commissioner as to suitability and availability; given the respondent's exceptional circumstances and supportive reports the Court quashed the unlawful order and lawfully substituted an order for detention in a training centre.

  • 21 May 1992

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE PO MAN DAVID

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE PO MAN DAVID
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR17/1991

    The Training Centre Order was manifestly inadequate for a well‑planned kidnapping that involved administering chloroform and serious ransom threats; immediate custodial sentence was required. Considering aggravating factors a starting point of about ten years for the combined offences was appropriate, with allowance for mitigation leading to a heavier custodial sentence than the Training Centre Order; on review a global sentence of five years imprisonment (after a discretionary review discount) was substituted.

  • 24 Oct 1989

    THE QUEEN v. WONG KING SUN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. WONG KING SUN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC217/1989

    Given the multiple occasions firearms were discharged in public streets and other aggravating features, but bearing in mind defendants were not organisers and entered guilty pleas and the youth of D2, the appropriate starting point for robbery with firearms is 18 years; apply discounts of 3 years for D1 and 4 years for D2 for mitigation, retain concurrent 8-year sentences for possession counts, and for D3 impose 15 years on the use count with 2 years to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences, producing total sentences of 15, 14 and 17 years respectively.