Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prison discipline

Legal area

Court

2 May 2019

HKSAR v. FONG KING CHOI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 487
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC319/2018

Bail was granted because the court found the applicantʼs appeal was reasonably arguable on the ground that the 20‑month sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and there was a real likelihood that, taking into account time already served, remission and the scheduling of an expedited hearing, the applicant would have served all or a substantial part of the sentence before the appeal was heard.
30 Jun 2006

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL5/2006

Leave to apply for judicial review refused in all respects because the applicant failed to show prima facie arguable grounds for judicial review on multiple complaints, suffered inexcusable delay contrary to Order 53 r.4(1), many issues were appropriately dealt with or should be dealt with in criminal or disciplinary proceedings (or by writ for tort claims), and the impugned prison restrictions and decisions fell within the lawful discretionary regulatory framework governing prisons and custody.
28 Jul 2004

CHEUNG KOON KIT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF HKSAR

Citation

CHEUNG KOON KIT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL108/2003

The court held that any procedural irregularities (non-disclosure of the personal file and minute M29, absence of oral hearing) were not materially prejudicial in the circumstances, no statutory or fairness obligation required disclosure or an oral hearing here, and the Commissioner acted within his broad discretion; the compulsory retirement with deferred pension was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the judicial review application was dismissed.
9 Mar 2001

HKSAR v. CHIU FEI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU FEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA35/2001

Although the six month sentence for the prison assault was not excessive or wrong in principle given the offence's seriousness, the Magistrate erred by not sufficiently considering the totality of punishment while the Appellant was already serving eight years; the appropriate remedy is to order part of the sentence to run concurrently and part consecutively to reflect both seriousness and totality.
5 Oct 1972

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG KAI-ON

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG KAI-ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR10/1972

The Full Court held the magistrate's order that the nine month sentence run concurrently was wrong in principle because it imposed no additional punishment or deterrent effect; the nine months must run consecutive to the existing seven year sentence. The Court also held that the Commissioner of Prisons should not impose loss of remission for the same offence after judicial prosecution as that would amount to double punishment.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. FONG KING CHOI

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

CHEUNG KOON KIT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF HKSAR

HKSAR v. CHIU FEI

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG KAI-ON