Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of sentenced persons

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2024

PRIETO VAZQUEZ TALINA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2020
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1228/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Decision refusing consent under TSPO s4(2)(e) was within the statutory powers, rationally based on relevant considerations (notably gravity of offence and information that Mexican law could permit conditional release at 50%), there was no arguable procedural unfairness given the applicant's informed consent and inquiries made, and the court would not lightly intervene in transfer decisions that engage foreign affairs and statutory discretion.
15 Nov 2017

HKSAR v. KILIMA YUSUPH ABBAS

Citation

HKSAR v. KILIMA YUSUPH ABBAS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC391/2014

A formal and deliberate abandonment of an appeal cannot be treated as a nullity merely because post-sentence assistance is later claimed; where assistance is alleged to have occurred after finalisation or abandonment of an appeal, the proper remedy is a petition to the Chief Executive and not reopening the appeal, particularly where the claimed assistance concerns a foreign jurisdiction and the applicant has not discharged the onus of proving its value.
20 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. TABIMA CORTES JULIO CESAR

Citation

HKSAR v. TABIMA CORTES JULIO CESAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC334/2016

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay in filing the notice (delay was deliberate and unjustified); moreover the substantive appeal lacked merit because the sentencing starting point and one‑year enhancement were appropriate given the quantity and international importation of cocaine, and the forfeiture order was lawful; accordingly the sentence of 14 years 4 months and forfeiture stand.
3 Oct 2016

HKSAR v. RODRIGUEZ BANDERA JAIME

Citation

HKSAR v. RODRIGUEZ BANDERA JAIME
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2016

The application was dismissed because the applicant's own evidence showed he knew he could represent himself despite denial of legal aid, so the abandonment was a deliberate and informed act and not a nullity; therefore there was no basis to revive the abandoned out‑of‑time appeal and the court did not reach the merits of the sentence appeal.
29 Jun 2016

HKSAR v. MBACHU CHARLES SUNDAY

Citation

HKSAR v. MBACHU CHARLES SUNDAY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC307/2009

The Court refused the nullity application because the applicant failed to prove that the Notice of Abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act: his explanations were inconsistent and delayed, a prior nullity application had failed, the co-defendant's identical appeal had been dismissed, and the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive; therefore the abandonment stands and the application is refused.
19 May 2016

HKSAR v. ZUNINI DE LA CRUZ JORGE DANIEL

Citation

HKSAR v. ZUNINI DE LA CRUZ JORGE DANIEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2010

The Court treated the earlier abandonment as a nullity due to the applicant's misunderstanding and language/translation concerns but refused leave to appeal because the judge's summing-up was fair, the directions on burden and standard of proof were correct, and the circumstantial evidence (false name/document, receipt and possession of a parcel containing a large quantity of cocaine at an address where the applicant did not reside) gave the jury a proper case to resolve; therefore the conviction was not shown to be unsafe.
22 May 2015

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB

Citation

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC278/2010

Given the temporal proximity of the abandonment and the transfer application, the absence at the time of clear explanatory notes and potential language issues, the abandonment was not a deliberate informed act and is treated as a nullity; on merits the sentence of 16 years 8 months is appropriate under Abdallah guidelines (starting point 23 years, two‑year enhancement for importation, one‑third plea discount) and no further discount is warranted for the non‑prejudicial statement/offered evidence because it undermined credibility and provided no usable assistance to prosecution.
18 Jan 2011

HKSAR v. SARKUNA

Citation

HKSAR v. SARKUNA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC239/2002

The Court treated the abandonment as a nullity because the applicant established that his mind did not go with the deed: he had applied for transfer, there was plausible advice he could not pursue transfer while proceedings were pending, the notice was not in his language and may not have been understood, and his delay in revival was satisfactorily explained; accordingly the abandonment was set aside and the application for leave to appeal was to be heard on the merits and legal aid granted.
23 Aug 2010

NG KING TAT PHILIP v. POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION BOARD

Citation

NG KING TAT PHILIP v. POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/2010

On a purposive construction of Cap 475 in its statutory and legislative context the Post-Release Supervision of Prisoners Ordinance applies to transferred prisoners; the Board lawfully made the supervision order and the challenged conditions are rationally connected to legitimate aims of rehabilitation and public protection and are proportionate, therefore the judicial review is dismissed.
16 Apr 2009

HKSAR v. YEUNG KIN CHAI

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG KIN CHAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC341/2008

Although money laundering is a serious offence, where the offence is a single, unsophisticated transaction involving a relatively modest sum and the offender played a limited role, a reduced starting point is appropriate; applying that principle the Court reduced the starting point to 30 months and, after retaining the 20% guilty plea discount, substituted a 2-year sentence for Charge 1 while leaving Charge 2 (6 months) consecutive.