Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Training centre detention

Legal area

Court

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.
25 Jun 1998

HKSAR v. LI YUN SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. LI YUN SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC190/1998

The applicant's youth and mitigation were considered but did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying non-custodial disposal; the trial judge properly balanced age, guilty plea and cooperation against the substantial quantity of heroin and the need for deterrence, and the resulting prison sentence was appropriate; the application is dismissed.
12 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. WONG KIN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KIN WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC686/1997

The Court held that detention in a Training Centre was the appropriate and proportionate sentence for an 18‑year‑old in possession of a quantity of heroin indicated by the facts, and that the application for leave to appeal against that sentence lacked merit.
12 Feb 1997

R. v. LUN CHING YEE

Citation

R. v. LUN CHING YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1384/1996

Because the appellant had been detained for more than three months and institutional and probation reports demonstrated genuine attitudinal change and recommended a Community Service Order, the court found a CSO to be a sufficiently effective rehabilitative alternative and substituted it for Training Centre detention.
12 May 1995

R. v. WONG SHEUNG YU

Citation

R. v. WONG SHEUNG YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA161/1995

The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion after considering relevant reports and the seriousness of trafficking; probation was not recommended and there was no error of principle or reason to disturb the sentence to detention in a training centre, therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the sentence upheld.
1 Oct 1987

THE QUEEN v. CHUI KAM KONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHUI KAM KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/1987

The Court concluded the sentencing judge approached the matter incorrectly by treating the appellant's position as substantially the same as co-defendants and effectively double counting offences already sentenced; therefore the five year imprisonment was quashed and replaced with detention in a Training Centre as the appropriate order given the appellant's circumstances and the Training Centre report.
27 Mar 1987

THE QUEEN v. LEE YIU WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE YIU WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC614/1987

For the first applicant the established starting point for the quantity involved was 8 years; after allowing appropriate credit for guilty plea and assistance the 6 year custodial sentence was not excessive and the appeal was refused. For the second applicant, who was just over 16 and had been in custody for four months, the Court exercised its power to substitute detention in a Training Centre for the 6 year sentence, as custody should be a last resort for youthful offenders and withdrawal from addiction was likely to have occurred during remand.
11 Dec 1985

THE QUEEN v. KING MAN-WING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KING MAN-WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC409/1985

Because the applicant was only about 16 and would benefit from rehabilitation and supervision, and courts should avoid exposing very young offenders to hardened criminals, the appropriate sentence was detention in a Training Centre rather than three and a half years' imprisonment.
22 Mar 1984

THE QUEEN v. WAN YUEN-YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WAN YUEN-YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA93/1984

The magistrate erred in principle by misassessing remorse and improperly weighing mitigating factors and report material; accordingly the detention order for placement in a training centre was quashed and substituted with a probation order for 18 months (subject to the appellant's consent).
17 Jul 1980

LAU HIN-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAU HIN-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC508/1980

The magistrate's sentence was not manifestly excessive and will be affirmed; disparity in punishment between co-accused due to youth does not require reduction of the appellant's proper sentence, though the Commissioner of Prisons should be informed of the appellant's remorse and claim to be a police informer.