Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing principles and starting points

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. LAI WING TAT

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1579
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC363/2019

The Court held there was no basis to disturb the aggregate sentence because the judge lawfully and reasonably weighed aggravating factors (multiple victims, victims' ages, unprotected intercourse and pregnancy, significant age gap, prior like conviction and high risk of reoffending) and applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence and protection of the community; the totality of 9 years was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.
8 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. MODIBO DIARRA

Citation

HKSAR v. MODIBO DIARRA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA391/2017

The court held the magistrate did not err in principle or make a manifestly excessive order: a 9‑month starting point was appropriate for the quantity and mix of drugs, reduced by one‑third for a guilty plea produced a 6‑month sentence which was upheld; possession of two types of drugs was not treated as aggravating; and no deduction for administrative detention was available because the detention was not related to the offence under s67A CPO.
20 Jul 2007

HKSAR v. KITA YASUSHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. KITA YASUSHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC470/2006

The court granted leave, treated the hearing as the appeal, reduced the starting point for the credit-card related offences to 3 years and for the passport offences to 18 months, applied the usual guilty-plea discount yielding 28 months for the main charges (concurrent) and 12 months for the passport charges of which 4 months are consecutive, and held that although the judge erred in imposing excessive sentences on the passport charges the overall effective sentence of 32 months was not inappropriate and thus remains unchanged.
2 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. STHAPAK, RAKESH KUMAR

Citation

HKSAR v. STHAPAK, RAKESH KUMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1180/2004

The Court held that the magistrate's sentence of 15 months for using a forged travel document (with a concurrent six-month sentence for false representation) was within the appropriate range, that the appellant was not a transit passenger but was seeking entry, that the data did not show a consistent lower sentencing pattern warranting referral to the Court of Appeal, and accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the sentences confirmed.
16 Jul 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC553/2002

The Court refused leave and upheld the sentence: the judge did not err in principle in selecting a six‑year starting point reduced by one‑third for the plea to four years; the organised, multi‑vehicle, multi‑bank and large‑scale nature of the fraud made the sentence appropriate and the repayments did not amount to additional mitigation because most were effected by cycling proceeds of further frauds or were not voluntary in a way that would reduce culpability.
15 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. NG WAH KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. NG WAH KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA628/2001

The magistrate's chosen starting points (12 and 15 months) and reductions for guilty pleas were appropriate in light of prior appellate authority, the prevalence of the offence, and deterrence considerations; the reductions and application of the totality principle produced an overall 18 months sentence which was not manifestly excessive, and the appellate court declined to increase the sentence under s119(1)(e) given the mitigation.
19 May 2000

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG YIN TAK AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG YIN TAK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR9/1999

The training centre orders, while originally defensible because time already served plus expected training centre detention equated to a substantive custodial period and allowed rehabilitation, were rendered wrong in principle by subsequent administrative removal of respondents to remand custody (so training centre time would not count), producing unfairness and undermining the sentencing rationale; parity with the adult co-defendant and sentencing principles required substituting determinate prison sentences, and the court (majority) imposed 3 years 11 months imprisonment on each respondent…
8 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. KWAN SHIU CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN SHIU CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA779/1999

A Magistrate may rely on s.65C admitted facts to determine the existence and level of obscenity without personally viewing the material; the Magistrate was entitled to adopt a 12‑month starting point for sentencing in light of the prevalence and organised nature of the trade and the need for deterrence; the individual sentences imposed (effectively 8 months for most appellants, and reduction to 8 months for Yu Man-lung to correct plea discount) were not manifestly excessive.