Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Plea credit

  • 30 Aug 2010

    HKSAR v. YAU KIT KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YAU KIT KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC350/2009

    The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge, having heard the full contested evidence, reasonably concluded the applicant's sustained and deliberate strangulation, the broken thyroid cartilage, the absence of meaningful remorse and flight rendered the offence particularly grave and justified a 12-year sentence; customary ranges are not binding and no plea discount was required absent a formal guilty plea.

  • 31 Jul 2003

    HKSAR v. NG KAI MING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NG KAI MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC353/2002

    The Court found that section 24 was not relied upon at trial, that defence counsel had effectively advised the applicant of the practical consequences of not testifying, and that the applicant was resolute in denying the charges; therefore the absence of specific reference to s24 did not materially affect his decision to plead not guilty or to refuse to give evidence and did not justify treating him as if he had pleaded guilty for sentencing purposes; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

  • 10 Sept 1999

    HKSAR v. HO CHI WAI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HO CHI WAI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC311/1999

    The Court held there was no error of principle in the sentencing judge's approach; D2's breach of trust as an employee and his disabling of prevention of dishonesty justified a higher starting point; a 6‑year starting point reduced to 4 years was not manifestly excessive; D1's 4‑year starting point reduced to 3 years was also appropriate. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused for both appellants.

  • 1 Oct 1987

    THE QUEEN v. CHUI KAM KONG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHUI KAM KONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC247/1987

    The Court concluded the sentencing judge approached the matter incorrectly by treating the appellant's position as substantially the same as co-defendants and effectively double counting offences already sentenced; therefore the five year imprisonment was quashed and replaced with detention in a Training Centre as the appropriate order given the appellant's circumstances and the Training Centre report.

  • 26 Nov 1986

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAT WAH

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAT WAH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC239/1986

    Given the overlapping substantive and conspiracy charges and the absence of justification for a greater punishment for conspiracy, the sentence for the conspiracy count must not exceed the sentence for the substantive counts covering the same transactions; on the facts the conspiracy sentence was reduced to match the substantive sentences while other sentences were upheld.