Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence commencement

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. KWAN WAI HON

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN WAI HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/2005

The judge's non‑standard phrasing had an adverse and arguable effect on the applicant's release date because, given statutory credit under s67A(1A), treating the District Court sentence as commencing exactly six months after the Fanling sentences' start produced a later release date than would a conventional order that six months run consecutively; consequently leave to appeal against sentence was properly granted to enable correction.
16 May 2003

HKSAR v. LAM YUET SIU

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM YUET SIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/2002

The Court held that the only coherent construction of the judge's remarks on 6 August 2002 was that the sentences of three years and five months were to run concurrently with each other and commence one month later (6 September 2002) under s.68 CPO; the purported amendment on 12 August 2002 making them consecutive was unjust and wrongly made, and the Court confirmed the original intended sentence to take effect from 6 September 2002.
24 Feb 1986

THE QUEEN v. LEE CHI KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA760/1985

Disqualification periods commence from the moment they are pronounced; therefore the second disqualification could not properly be made to run consecutively so as to delay full effect and must run from the date of the order.
4 May 1984

THE QUEEN v. WONG MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/1984

Because the magistrate had fully considered the discrepancies and expressly found the principal prosecution witness credible, the appellate court will not disturb that factual credibility finding; therefore the conviction must stand and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Sept 1982

KAM HING-TAT v. THE QUEEN

Citation

KAM HING-TAT v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC434/1982

The Court held that fixing the commencement of the later sentence from 23 August 1982 improperly increased the overall term; because the offences would have attracted concurrent sentences if joined, and the aggravating factor of offending on bail did not justify the delayed commencement and additional effective custody, the judge's order was quashed and all sentences ordered to run concurrently; the order for loss of time was also set aside.
12 Dec 1973

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI YU KAI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI YU KAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR17/1973

Subsections (1) and (2) of s.67A are disjunctive; a court has discretion under s.67A(1) to direct commencement but must use that power sparingly and not to deprive an accused of automatic credit under s.67A(2); back-dating is only justified to compensate for additional custody through no fault of the accused and reasons must be given; where sentence was inadequate the appellate court may increase it.
30 Apr 1970

YAU NAM-YUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YAU NAM-YUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC714/1969

The convictions for uttering forged documents are upheld because there was ample evidence that the appellant handed forged documents to the complainant who believed them to be genuine; the fact that multiple documents were charged separately despite being handed over in one transaction did not invalidate the convictions though it was undesirable; application for leave to appeal dismissed and sentences affirmed to run from date of conviction.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KWAN WAI HON

HKSAR v. LAM YUET SIU

THE QUEEN v. LEE CHI KEUNG

THE QUEEN v. WONG MING

KAM HING-TAT v. THE QUEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI YU KAI AND OTHERS

YAU NAM-YUEN v. THE QUEEN