Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Triad offence

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴楊振昇及另四人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1821
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC970/2023

The court fixed objective starting points for each offence (triad conduct 15 or 9 months depending on role; assault 9 months; arson 36 months; failure to surrender 3 months), applied a one‑third reduction for timely guilty pleas, allowed mitigation for significant prosecutorial delay by reducing terms or suspending sentences as appropriate, and applied the totality principle to order partial concurrency resulting in final immediate custodial terms for D4 and aggregate suspended or immediate sentences for others; compensation and administrative handling of D11's detention were ordered accordin…
17 May 2022

香港特別行政區訴周朗賢

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1709
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA172/2021

The Court upheld the trial judge's adoption of a 9-month sentencing starting point for participation as a triad member, accepted a 3-month deduction for serious prosecutorial delay, and concluded the resulting 6-month immediate imprisonment was not in principle wrong or manifestly excessive; family hardship and later material did not justify further reduction or non-custodial disposal.
7 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN KA FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC167/2013

Bail pending appeal was refused because the Court formed a tentative view that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success given that the trial judge's credibility findings were not plainly wrong, and the applicant had already served more than half of his 18‑month sentence but the merits did not justify bail.
27 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. HO KIU ANDY

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KIU ANDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1077/1998

Leave to adduce the taped telephone conversation was refused because the Appellant and his counsel knew of the recording before trial and it could have been produced with due diligence; the magistrate's acceptance of PW1 and the medical report made convictions on charges 1,2,3 safe and they are affirmed; however convictions on charges 4 and 9 are unsafe because the magistrate failed to properly consider evidence relating to the tall man, made an impermissible inference about timing/causation of injuries without calling the doctor, and did not resolve conflicting witness evidence, therefore th…

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 楊振昇及另四人

香港特別行政區 訴 周朗賢

HKSAR v. CHAN KA FAI

HKSAR v. HO KIU ANDY

香港特別行政區訴楊振昇及另四人

香港特別行政區訴周朗賢