Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Suspended sentences

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHI FUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 77
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP795/2015

Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is inapplicable because these committal proceedings are civil causes/matters and the Court of First Instance is not exercising criminal jurisdiction; sentencing was determined by each respondent's role and conduct with immediate imprisonment for principal obstructors and suspended sentences and fines for lesser involvement.
17 Jan 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI HONG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 77
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP787/2015

Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance does not apply because the Court of First Instance is not exercising criminal jurisdiction in these civil contempt proceedings; sentencing followed assessment of individual culpability and mitigation: leading obstructors received immediate custodial sentences while lesser participants received suspended terms with fines or no fine according to circumstances; costs awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis with a certificate for three counsel.
17 Jan 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAU WAN YING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 77
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP774/2015

Because these contempt proceedings arise from civil injunctions and the Court of First Instance is not exercising criminal jurisdiction, s109A Criminal Procedure Ordinance does not apply; sentencing was therefore governed by the court's civil-contempt sentencing approach, applying proportionality to individual culpability resulting in a mix of immediate imprisonment for principal obstructors and suspended imprisonment with fines for lesser participants; costs awarded to applicant on an indemnity basis with certificate for three counsel.
18 Jun 1987

THE QUEEN v. AU CHAK KWAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. AU CHAK KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA285/1987

The court held that mixing immediate custodial sentences with suspended custodial sentences in the circumstances produced an excessive cumulative sentence; the suspended sentence for criminal damage should have been treated as concurrent with the immediate custodial sentence from 14 March 1986 and the magistrate lawfully had power to impose a fine together with imprisonment for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under ss.39 and 58 read with the proviso to s.92; applying the totality principle the aggregate sentence of 18 months was excessive and was reduced to 12 months.
31 Aug 1979

LAW TUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAW TUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC658/1979

The Court held the escalating series of sentences was not the proper approach, quashed the present sentences and substituted two years' imprisonment on each of the four charges to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences imposed in 1978, and confirmed that the activated suspended sentences (totaling eighteen months) should be added to the overall punishment.
22 Jan 1975

KAN KWOK MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

KAN KWOK MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC834/1974

The court allowed the appeal of the first appellant and substituted sentences (within statutory limits and applying s.67A) to permit his release today in light of his youth, severe injury and time served, while requiring compliance with mandatory minimum sentencing on the relevant charge; the second appellant's appeal was dismissed and the Training Centre order upheld; any sentence exceeding the statutory maximum must be reduced to the lawful maximum.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHI FUNG

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI HONG

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAU WAN YING

THE QUEEN v. AU CHAK KWAN

LAW TUNG-SHING v. THE QUEEN

KAN KWOK MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN