Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public protection and deterrence

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2020

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHIN JONG HWA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1457
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP891/2014

The 1st Respondent failed to discharge the burden to show exceptional circumstances. Protection of potential creditors and investors remains necessary despite wholly owned status; assertions of PRC regulatory risk were unsupported by independent evidence and the cited PRC provision did not require the applicant to be director; the asserted tax consequences were irrelevant because preferential treatment did not depend on his continuing as director. Therefore leave was refused and the summons dismissed.
22 Dec 2010

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN HON HOI

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN HON HOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/2010

The original district court sentence was unduly lenient given the respondent's deliberate repeated drug-driving as a professional taxi driver and his relevant record; appropriate starting points close to the 3-year maximum were justified, reduced by one-third for guilty pleas, resulting in increased custodial terms totalling 30 months plus 14 days and an increased disqualification period of three years with a re-test requirement; consecutive disqualification periods should not be ordered but the overall period must adequately protect the public.
4 Mar 1974

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU KAM-TIM

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU KAM-TIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/1974

Detention in an addiction treatment centre may be lawful but is only justifiable in rare cases where there is no violence, no weapon, no accomplice and a demonstrated genuine desire for treatment; where those conditions are absent and public protection and deterrence demand it, a custodial sentence must be imposed — accordingly the trial orders for treatment were inappropriate in these cases and substituted by 18 months' imprisonment with time spent in treatment centres credited.
4 Mar 1974

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAU WAI-TING

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAU WAI-TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/1974

Detention in an addiction treatment centre may be imposed for robbery only in rare and compelling cases where there is no violence, no weapon, no accomplice and the offender's commitment to cure addiction is proved; where those factors are absent custodial imprisonment is required — substituted sentences of 18 months' imprisonment were appropriate in these cases.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHIN JONG HWA AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN HON HOI

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU KAM-TIM

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAU WAI-TING