Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence length

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. KO WAI SHING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 457
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC7/2020

Bail pending appeal was granted because the appellant demonstrated reasonably arguable grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success, the respondent did not oppose bail, and although there was a real likelihood the sentence would have been served before the appeal, the appellant accepted the risk of returning to custody if unsuccessful; the proposed bail terms provided adequate safeguards to ensure surrender to court.
27 Feb 2019

香港特別行政區訴鄧桂枝

Citation

[2019] HKCA 257
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC256/2018

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the sentence (30 months) fell within the applicable guideline range for trafficking under 10g, the trial judge properly accounted for a 15% personal use reduction and the applicant's 16 prior convictions, and there were no arguable grounds demonstrating the sentence was manifestly excessive.
17 Dec 2008

HKSAR v. SOMPHAKSORN LAMYAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SOMPHAKSORN LAMYAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC88/2008

Leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because no valid reason was provided for the substantial delay; independently, the sentences were held to be unduly lenient because the sentencing judge adopted starting points below those indicated by Lau Tak Ming and gave excessive weight to mitigation (including chance capacity and financial hardship), undermining deterrence and risking manipulation of sentencing bands, so the Court would not grant relief and left sentences as imposed.
18 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. FU KA WONG

Citation

HKSAR v. FU KA WONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA480/2008

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly relied on psychiatric evidence showing long-term schizophrenia, psychosis at the time of the offence, lack of insight and inability to maintain follow-up treatment; the four month hospital order was recommended by psychiatrists and was not excessive in the circumstances.
28 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHOI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHOI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA116/2007

The court upheld the 21 months' imprisonment because the appellant's repeated identical offences and history of prior custodial sentences justified an increased sentence and the asserted humanitarian circumstances were not sufficiently strong to warrant reduction.
8 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. LEE WAI SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE WAI SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA897/1999

Previous periods of detention resulted from the appellant's absences from court and the obtaining of a DATC report; they do not render the six month sentence manifestly excessive, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
2 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. PAW CHAM FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. PAW CHAM FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/1997

The Court dismissed the application because the sentencing judge properly assessed mitigation including prior good character and the late guilty plea, correctly held that the applicant's offered assistance produced no material benefit to authorities and therefore warranted no discount, and the 24 year starting point for such large-scale heroin trafficking was appropriate in light of authority.
18 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. CHAU CHIU YUET

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU CHIU YUET
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC215/1997

Leave to appeal out of time was refused and the 10 year aggregate sentence upheld because no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given, the sentencing judge correctly applied the totality principle and lawful sentencing objectives including protection of the community justified the sentence; a psychological report was not required on the facts.
7 Mar 1997

R. v. TSANG KAM HA

Citation

R. v. TSANG KAM HA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC538/1996

Given the quantity of pure heroin (7.92 grams) and the tariff in R v Lau Tak-ming, a two year sentence, allowing for discount for guilty plea, was appropriate; the applicant's health and family circumstances did not amount to sufficient mitigation to warrant interference with the sentence; leave to appeal was refused.
23 Aug 1996

R. v. SHUM CHI KEUNG

Citation

R. v. SHUM CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/1996

Leave to appeal against sentence is refused because the applicant failed to put forward any grounds of appeal and the sentence of two-and-a-half years was within the sentencing judge's discretion in light of the burglary, prior convictions and the applicant's having absconded.