Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence guidelines

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2023

香港特別行政區訴賀倩茜

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA86/2023

The trial judge's direct observation of the handover, the proximity in time and place to the recovery of the packaged methamphetamine from the second defendant's pocket, and the rejection of the defendants' accounts as inherently implausible established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence reflected lawful exercise of discretion taking into account small quantity and personal mitigation and was not manifestly excessive.
5 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. LAW KWOK HUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 86
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA487/2019

The appellant's unequivocal guilty plea and admitted facts constituted the offence charged; no ground was shown to render the plea a nullity; having regard to evidence, the appellant's persistent dishonesty and applicable pickpocketing sentencing guidelines, a 9‑month starting point reduced by one‑third for plea to 6 months was not manifestly excessive, therefore conviction and sentence are upheld.
23 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. NUR MEI LINA

Citation

[2018] HKCA 383
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/2017

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the 10-month delay and had known of the material relied upon before sentence; there was no overriding factor rendering convictions entered on unequivocal, informed guilty pleas unsafe or unsatisfactory; and the sentences imposed followed applicable guidelines and were not excessive, therefore leave to appeal against sentence was refused and the appeal dismissed.
22 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. MENDOZA BOLANOS EDGAR ANTONIO

Citation

HKSAR v. MENDOZA BOLANOS EDGAR ANTONIO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2015

The application was dismissed because the claim of duress lacked evidential support and the sentencing judge correctly applied established guidelines (HKSAR v Abdallah) to fix the starting point and properly enhanced the sentence for international importation; the overall sentence was within permissible range and not manifestly excessive.
9 May 2014

HKSAR v. AGAEHI PASCHAL EMEKA

Citation

HKSAR v. AGAEHI PASCHAL EMEKA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC305/2012

The Court dismissed the applications: the circumstantial evidence (diary entries, SIM cards, telephone links, CCTV and situational proximity) was sufficient and overwhelming to support convictions; alleged defence and procedural defects were matters for the jury or lacked particularity; sentencing properly applied Abdallah guidelines and the total 22.5 years prison term was appropriate.
27 Jun 2012

香港特別行政區對胡俊杰

Citation

香港特別行政區對胡俊杰
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC388/2011

Application for extension of time was refused because the delay of over six years was inordinate, the applicant's explanation for the delay (difficulty finding authorities) was unreasonable, and he failed to demonstrate sufficient/arguable grounds of appeal; the trial judge's adoption of a 21-year benchmark for the quantity involved did not seriously depart from established sentencing principles.
22 Dec 2011

HKSAR v. NG TIK KI CHANEKI

Citation

HKSAR v. NG TIK KI CHANEKI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC68/2011

The conviction on the first charge was quashed because the prosecution failed to prove the essential representation that the money would be invested; convictions on the second and third charges were upheld because the trial judge, after analyzing inconsistencies, legitimately found the defendant's explanation inherently improbable and accepted the core of the victims' evidence that the defendant induced them by false representations; the aggregate sentence of four years remained within the applicable guideline range given the scale, duration (16 months) and aggravating exploitation of familia…
8 Jun 2011

HKSAR v. KWOK SIU FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK SIU FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/2011

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's adoption of an 18-month starting point for the use of a forged identity card was within proper sentencing discretion given the actual use to effect a deception and the appellant's significant relevant previous convictions; the concurrent 12-month sentences originally imposed were therefore affirmed.
25 Jan 2000

HKSAR v. KWAN CHO HON

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN CHO HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC145/1999

The court held the inadvertent inclusion of the Hutchison SIM card in the exhibit bag was an unfortunate irregularity but immaterial because the mobile phone evidence did not contribute to proving the charge, the jury were properly directed not to speculate and to resolve doubts in favour of the defendant, and therefore the conviction was safe; on sentence the imposed term fell within established guidelines and was not excessive.
3 Jun 1998

HKSAR v. CHIN TAK HOI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIN TAK HOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC754/1997

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court found the trial judge's credibility assessments and inferences were reasonable and plainly open on the evidence, and the 6-year sentence was appropriate given the quantity of heroin and the applicant's serious antecedents.