Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing and deterrence

Legal area

Court

6 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴俞鵬東

Citation

[2020] HKCA 539
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC325/2019

The available circumstantial evidence—applicant's tenancy, his DNA and fingerprints in multiple locations/items in the flat where manufacture was occurring, and his immediate flight and prolonged absence—allowed a reasonable and irresistible inference of participation in drug manufacture; the jury was properly directed and the 20-year sentence was not manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.
17 Aug 2018

香港特別行政區訴林少石

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2017

就HCMA188，原審應容許就員工已收取的強積金累算權益及破產欠薪保障基金賠償作出扣減，故清付欠薪令金額按實際情況修改；就HCMA445，考慮被告背景、悔意、涉案金額及僅涉同一名僱員，裁定原定緩刑（監禁式刑罰）過重，改判以罰款代替監禁式處分，同時其他命令維持不變。
13 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. LUEN ON MOTORS LTD AND OTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LUEN ON MOTORS LTD AND OTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA217/2015

Court accepted prosecution witnesses and inferred the odometer was altered while the vehicle was in the company's possession; the director had an active role and knowledge such that the company and director were party to the offence, excluding the s26 defence; convictions of the company and director were therefore upheld; sentencing for the director and salesperson was reduced from 6 to 3 months, with the director's 3‑month term suspended for 2 years.
24 Oct 2014

香港特別行政區訴香港寶嘉建築有限公司

Citation

香港特別行政區訴香港寶嘉建築有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA238/2014

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact that six excavators were operating and that the appellant failed to establish either statutory or common law defences because its supervisory arrangements were insufficient; accordingly the conviction and the HK$80,000 fine were affirmed as not manifestly excessive given the appellant's repeated offences and the need for deterrence.
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. HUI CHI KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI CHI KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC138/2012

Even if the judge had directed herself correctly on the burden under s26(4), the prosecution proved that the applicant had reason to suspect the goods bore the forged Burberry Check mark given the close operational relationship with PSR Ltd, prior knowledge indicators (advertisements, registration documents) and the revocation proceedings; therefore statutory defence unavailable and convictions must stand; the concurrent custodial sentence of eight months was not manifestly excessive.
12 Dec 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1221/2005

The Court upheld the Magistrate: distribution under s118(1)(f) encompasses acts enabling electronic dissemination and seeding via BitTorrent constitutes distribution or attempted distribution of copies because the statute's 'copy' covers electronically stored copies; accordingly convictions and concurrent sentences of three months' imprisonment on each of three counts were affirmed.
20 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. BEST SUCCESS HOLDING LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. BEST SUCCESS HOLDING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC47/2003

The court exercised its s132 discretion by accepting a payment in lieu of outright forfeiture as equitable, ordered return of certain items (items 9–16), ordered forfeiture of other items (items 23–28) subject to conditionality, and required payment of HK$1.3 million to the Government by 1 February 2005; the decision balanced deterrence, enforcement objectives and the defendant's financial and employment consequences.
7 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI FUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI FUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1002/2001

The court found the admitted facts (display of 1,600 infringing copies, the appellant's active invitation 'Choose more discs. Cheaper for you.', possession of the shop key and control) amounted to offering for sale under s.118(1)(e)(ii); the guilty plea was voluntary and informed because the appellant was present, heard the magistrate's inquiries, signed documents acknowledging the statutory defence and risk of imprisonment and had independent advice; and the sentence of six months (derived from a 12-month starting point with discounts) was not manifestly excessive given the scale of infringe…
25 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Citation

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA347/1997

The conviction was supported by ample evidence and must stand; the magistrate did not fail to consider mitigation; given the appellant's persistent history of similar offences and the failure of prior fines to deter, the appropriate sentence is higher than imposed by the magistrate, and the fine is increased to reflect seriousness and deterrence.
9 Dec 1993

THE QUEEN v. TSE KWOK KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSE KWOK KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA325/1993

The Court held that even without relying on the statutory presumption the prosecution led sufficient and credible expert evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vessel Al was being constructed for the sole purpose of smuggling; the magistrate properly accepted the expert testimony and his adverse assessment of the appellant's explanations was justified; the sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine was not excessive given the need for deterrence.