Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing procedure

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2018

HKSAR v. LEE SUI WAH

Citation

[2018] HKCA 406
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC187/2017

Where s.69A(2) does not apply the judge had no jurisdiction to order that disqualification be deferred until after imprisonment; the judge also erred in failing to invite submissions or give reasons for the disqualification; accordingly the appropriate relief was to order the disqualification periods to run concurrently from the date of imposition while leaving the custodial sentence and other orders intact.
11 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. WONG KWONG WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KWONG WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA118/2017

Because the prosecution failed to supply brief facts and the charge contained only bare particulars, the magistrate could not properly assess the offence or sentence; accordingly the conviction and sentence were set aside and the out‑of‑time appeal allowed.
20 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/2015

(1) The 1st defendant's ground failed: where prosecution does not accept a plea to a lesser alternative and proceeds on the principal count, the plea is treated as a nullity and the jury need not be asked to convict on the alternative count; (2) The 3rd defendant's conviction must be quashed because the judge failed to direct the jury that if they found the defendant's account of coercion in the taking of out-of-court statements might be true they must disregard wholly any evidence of his failure to complain and not draw adverse inferences; that misdirection was material and required quashing…
27 Apr 2016

香港特別行政區訴黃文廸

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃文廸
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA187/2016

上訴得直。裁判官在庭上未能清楚交代量刑起點及認罪扣減屬程序上之錯誤，但高院重訂量刑：採納6個月為起點，因認罪給予三分之一扣減降為4個月，並因受害人挑釁酌情減1個月為3個月；原緩刑中2星期監禁應與本案刑期同期執行，故最終總刑期為3個月。
18 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. WONG MUN MING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MUN MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC130/2015

Leave to appeal was granted because the sentencing judge gave no adequate explanation for imposing a 6-year disqualification and raised important questions about whether judges may extend the statutory minimum to account for custody time and whether defendants must be given an opportunity to address proposed longer disqualification periods.
10 Oct 2003

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA503/2003

The appeal was allowed and the Rehabilitation Centre Order substituted with an 18-month Probation Order because the pre-sentence reports, apparent family support and prospects for rehabilitation made custody non-mandatory and probation with conditions was the appropriate disposition in all the circumstances.
12 Jul 2001

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC157/2001

The sentencing judge erred in applying breach of trust tariffs and in procedural conduct by seeking reports 'to give it a try' and making remarks that could raise expectations of a non-custodial outcome; on rehearing the correct approach yields a starting point of 4.5 years reduced for plea and cooperation, and having regard to the judge's misleading adjournment the appropriate sentence is two years' imprisonment.
1 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEUK HO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEUK HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC145/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court found no error of principle or manifest excess in sentencing: the judge considered youth and reports, correctly applied the law including the s.109A Schedule 3 exception, reasonably assessed greater culpability and earlier cooperation of co-defendants to justify disparity, and appropriately reduced the guilty plea discount due to lateness of plea, yielding 50 months per robbery which was within the correct range.
11 Feb 1999

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI SING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC484/1998

When a defendant is only given the opportunity to plead to a lesser charge on the day of trial and pleads at that earliest available opportunity, the full one‑third discount for an early plea applies; the trial judge erred in applying only a 25% reduction and the sentence must be reduced accordingly.
9 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC496/1997

The judge failed to give adequate individualized reasons to justify a two-year higher starting point for the applicant compared with his co-defendant on the identical 1st count; absent sufficient cause for the disparity the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant's starting point from 27 to 25 years, applied the appropriate plea discount and substituted a sentence of 16 years 8 months to run concurrently with the 14-year sentence on the 2nd count.