Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing on appeal

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2009

HKSAR v. GILL, INDERJIT KAUR

Citation

HKSAR v. GILL, INDERJIT KAUR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA573/2010

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion having considered relevant authority; the appellant's medical condition did not justify interference as prison medical facilities are adequate; and humanitarian concerns about childcare were not sufficient since social welfare assistance was addressed and the children were being cared for by their father.
16 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. KE YUQIONG

Citation

HKSAR v. KE YUQIONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA620/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's sentencing was within appropriate bounds: the 15 months custodial sentence for using a forged Hong Kong Identity Card was justified by the direct link to illegal employment and supporting case law, and the concurrent 6 weeks for breach of stay was not excessive; mitigating factors did not warrant reduction.
24 Oct 2002

HKSAR v. PANG CHAI

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG CHAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA764/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the learned magistrate applied correct sentencing principles, selected an appropriate starting point, gave the standard discount for guilty plea and additional reduction for age, and the resulting 10 month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
13 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. YUEN KIN KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN KIN KEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA915/2000

The magistrate acted within discretion in adopting the DATC officer's recommendation; the resulting sentence of admission to DATC was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
16 Apr 1996

THE QUEEN v. SO HOI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SO HOI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA366/1996

Appeal allowed and magistrate's detention sentences set aside because, on the material before the court, the short period already spent in custody, the school's willingness to readmit the boy and parental assurances created an exceptional prospect that probation would better achieve rehabilitation; accordingly the court ordered a 3‑year probation subject to the appellant's consent.
4 Mar 1992

CHOW WAI FU v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

CHOW WAI FU v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/1991

The Council's sentence was affected by extraneous unproved allegations introduced during mitigation (an assertion that the doctor had purchased excessive quantities of drugs), and because the Legal Adviser did not caution the Council or the Council state it had ignored such material, the appellate court must give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and vary the sanction. Sentencing must be confined to offences proved; accordingly the Court substituted a lesser removal period (18 months) for the two-year order.
21 May 1991

THE QUEEN v. TANG CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TANG CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA76/1991

The appeals were allowed in part because the aggregate total sentence was excessive; the Court reduced the sentences on all theft charges to three months while upholding the orders as to concurrency, consecutivity and activation of suspended sentences, resulting in revised total terms of 20 months for Siu and 18 months for Tang.
5 Dec 1980

GOBIND MOHAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

GOBIND MOHAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC455/1980

Appeal allowed in part: convictions based on the prospectus (Counts 1,3,5 and alternates 2,4,6) were set aside because the trial judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's plausible honest belief arising from reliance on professional advisers; alternate Companies Ordinance convictions likewise could not stand for same reason; convictions based on bogus bills (Counts 7–14) were affirmed because the evidence permitted the only proper inference that banks were deceived and there was no credible evidence of bank collusion.
3 May 1980

LO WING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LO WING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC747/1979

The Court held that the Crown had not proved that D.1, D.2 and D.3 were parties to the conspiracy to deceive Hong Kong authorities because the crucial contemporaneous 'note' and other assurances of an intention to use deceit were not proved and Kwok's evidence was unreliable in key respects; accordingly D.1, D.2 and D.3 were acquitted. By contrast D.4, who joined in Vietnam and participated throughout, knew of the intention to deceive and was rightly convicted. The conviction of the captain (D.6) under s.34(2) was quashed because Part VI did not require incoming passenger ships to hold the pa…
11 Mar 1976

FUNG TAT-KO AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

FUNG TAT-KO AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC9/1976

Where a witness dies before cross-examination and the death is through no fault of the parties, the witness's prior testimony is admissible; the absence of cross-examination affects only the weight to be attached to that testimony, not its admissibility, and a trial judge must take that into account; applying that principle to the facts, the magistrate did not err and the convictions stand.