Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing adjustment

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. SAU MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SAU MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC145/2003

The court held the trial judge correctly assessed and cautioned the testimony of an immunity accomplice, used prior statements only to evaluate credibility and not as substantive corroboration, and correctly relied on contemporaneous banking and documentary evidence to uphold most convictions; however the evidence specific to Charge 11 (two Rolex watches alleged to have been given to D2) was insufficiently supported and the conviction on that charge was unsafe and therefore quashed, with remaining convictions and sentences otherwise affirmed and adjusted accordingly.
12 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN KA HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC72/2002

The judge correctly directed the jury that proof of an actual successful fraud by the banks was not a prerequisite to conviction for conspiracy to defraud; the jury were properly invited to consider whether the applicant dishonestly agreed to present false documents with intent to defraud, and on the totality of the evidence (including the applicant's admissions and conduct) the convictions were safe. Sentence was reduced to reflect subsequent repayments and comparative authority to a total of six years and six months' imprisonment.
27 Jan 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN HONG YIK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HONG YIK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC493/1998

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses, reasonably accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the applicant's account, and there was no new or substantive ground on which an appellate court could properly disturb that credibility-based finding.
25 Feb 1992

R. v. LAM KWOK-HUNG

Citation

R. v. LAM KWOK-HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/1991

The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the aggregate sentence from 17 to 15 years because the trial judge should have given a more generous discount for the applicant's cooperation and should have reflected the demonstrable lesser criminality of the applicant compared with his co-accused; the court achieved this by altering the commencement of the sentence on Count 3.
3 Apr 1991

THE QUEEN v. TSUI WAI HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSUI WAI HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA988/1990

The appeal was allowed because the appellant had spent uncredited custody prior to sentence; the court held it could not backdate the sentence to the arrest date but could quash the original sentence and substitute a reduced sentence to reflect the pre-sentence custody, and accordingly substituted 14.5 months for the original 15 months.
25 Feb 1972

CHAN TING-HON v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN TING-HON v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1005/1971

Because the certificate of conviction signed by the magistrate governs when records conflict, the appellant was convicted of simple possession contrary to s8(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; the two-year sentence was excessive for that offence and must be substituted with a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SAU MING AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHAN KA HUNG

HKSAR v. CHAN HONG YIK

R. v. LAM KWOK-HUNG

THE QUEEN v. TSUI WAI HUNG

CHAN TING-HON v. THE QUEEN