Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prevalence evidence

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2003

HKSAR v. LEE YUEK SING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE YUEK SING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC515/2001

Where the enhancement under s.27(11) OSCO was applied on the basis of statistical evidence that, when corrected, did not show the offence to be prevalent, the enhancement was inappropriate. The appellate court removed the 25% enhancement, reduced the affected sentences accordingly, granted leave to appeal out of time and treated prior abandonments as nullities in these exceptional circumstances.
15 Jul 2003

HKSAR v. LEE YUEK-SING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE YUEK-SING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC521/2001

The appeals were allowed because the 25% enhancement under s27(11) OSCO was applied on the basis of misleading prevalence statistics; enhancement was inappropriate in the circumstances and must be removed, sentences recalculated accordingly, and prior abandonments treated as nullities with leave to appeal granted out of time.
29 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KWUN CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KWUN CHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/2001

The original starting point of four years (inclusive of an enhancement) was manifestly excessive given comparable authorities; a starting point of about two years with a 25% enhancement (not the 33% applied by the trial judge) and a one-third guilty plea discount was appropriate. Family hardship arising from offences committed while on two-way permits is not a proper mitigating factor. The Court substituted sentences accordingly: 2 years imprisonment per charge; for D1 two charges with 8 months of the second consecutive, total 2 years 8 months; for D2 2 years for the single charge.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LEE YUEK SING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEE YUEK-SING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KWUN CHING AND ANOTHER