Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Prosecutorial policy

  • 9 Oct 1992

    THE QUEEN v. TAM KAM KEUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. TAM KAM KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA52/1992

    The Court held that courts may take previous unlawful entry into account and increase sentence despite any selective prosecutorial policy; the use of another's identity card to obtain a particular benefit can justify an increased (upward adjusted) sentence depending on the facts — it did justify an increase for Chan but not for Tam; accordingly both appeals were dismissed and the sentences upheld.

  • 15 Aug 1990

    RE CHEUNG KWOK SANG

    Citation
    RE CHEUNG KWOK SANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR276/1990

    The Court held that the 15‑month guideline for unlawful presence remains appropriate; reductions for sudden unpublicised changes in prosecutorial policy are available only to those who were genuinely 'lulled' into a sense of security (not present here), and accordingly allowed most of the Attorney General's reviews substituting higher immediate sentences (primarily 12–15 months) while dismissing some applications and two magistracy appeals; the practice of applying discounts on review requires legal argument as its statutory basis is doubtful.

  • 14 May 1990

    THE QUEEN v. LUNG HON WAH AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LUNG HON WAH AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA144/1990

    Because the government introduced a new prosecution policy targeting group arrivals without publicizing it and long-standing executive conduct had created a reasonable expectation of repatriation for first-time entrants, the court reduced the standard 15 month sentence to six months for first-time illegal entrants arriving in groups, and held that the mitigation applies equally to attempted landings.

  • 2 Feb 1989

    THE QUEEN v CHAN CHOI-KWOK AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v CHAN CHOI-KWOK AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1561/1988

    Appeal allowed and sentences reduced to six months imprisonment each because the appellants did not fall within the prosecution-policy categories targeted for mandatory prosecution and their age, guilty pleas and immediate arrest warranted mitigation consistent with prior authorities.

  • 14 Nov 1988

    THE QUEEN v. WONG WAI HING

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. WONG WAI HING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1062/1988

    Because Government policy limited prosecutions to illegal entrants found at employment in groups of three or more and these appellants were first‑time visitors found in groups of less than three with no other offences and had already been detained, the court reduced the sentences to permit their immediate release.

  • 28 Oct 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN SZE-KING

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN SZE-KING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA888/1988

    The appeal was allowed in part because the court found the magistrate wrongly treated the second occasion as significantly more reprehensible; production of the card to police flowed from the prior production to obtain employment and did not justify a greater sentence. The 18‑month sentences were quashed and substituted with concurrent 15‑month imprisonment terms; the change of policy argument was rejected as having no merit.

  • 2 Sept 1971

    FUNG CHUN WAH v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    FUNG CHUN WAH v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC541/1971

    Because charges 2 to 5 rested solely on the appellant's uncorroborated confession and were brought contrary to the Attorney‑General/DPP instruction, the aggregate sentence of 25 months was excessive; the appeal against sentence is allowed and the court substituted reduced consecutive sentences of two months' imprisonment on each charge.