Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Triad society

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM BUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA783/2006

The appellate court held that taken together the evidence supported the sole reasonable inference that the appellant was acting as a member of a triad society at the restaurant; the appellant's election not to give evidence permitted limited support for that inference (Li De Fan); there was no sufficient prejudice to order severance; and the custodial sentence of six months was appropriate and should not be suspended.
29 May 1996

R. v. HAU SAI YIN

Citation

R. v. HAU SAI YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA56/1996

The magistrate was entitled to accept PW1's evidence and to find the cautioned statement voluntary despite procedural shortcomings; the evidence as a whole established guilt beyond reasonable doubt on all five charges; and the sentence structure (including partly consecutive and partly concurrent terms) was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.
12 Sept 1995

R. v. CHAN Yeung kei and Another

Citation

R. v. CHAN Yeung kei and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC407/1995

The trial judge permissibly inferred from the appellant's admission that he went to 'render assistance' and from his voluntary presence and conduct that he intended to and did encourage the commission of the offences; viewed in the round the convictions were not unsafe, and leave to appeal was therefore refused.
12 Feb 1992

THE QUEEN v. KWAN TAK HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWAN TAK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1108/1991

The sentencing judge's failure to explain and justify consecutive sentences and the insufficient application of the totality principle warranted intervention; the appropriate sentence was adjusted so that the principal blackmail sentence is 18 months with other offences to run concurrently.
27 Feb 1990

THE QUEEN v. LAI KONG HOI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAI KONG HOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1540/1989

Although there was an error in the magistrate's sentencing formulation regarding concurrency/consecutivity, the appellate court was not satisfied the total sentence of 24 months was manifestly excessive given the seriousness of recruiting young boys and the appellant's prior conviction; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the sentence is upheld.
8 Jan 1987

THE QUEEN v. WAI HIN KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WAI HIN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC133/1986

The Court held that there was no jurisdiction to impose police supervision and that the fines were unnecessary in the circumstances, so those orders were set aside; the custodial sentences (3 years on the principal charge and concurrent one-year terms on the others) were heavy but not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of triad-related conduct and evidence of initiating youths into triad practices, and therefore were affirmed.
3 Apr 1986

CHAN YUK TUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN YUK TUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA274/1986

The magistrate correctly found identification reliable on the facts (close distance, adequate lighting, 1–5 minutes observation and prior sightings), permissibly inferred the demand was made to the complainant and that the view to gain could be attributed to the appellant (or shared), and therefore the essential elements of blackmail were established; convictions and sentence were upheld.
22 Mar 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC565/1984

Given the new material facts (imminent birth, promised marriage and accommodation, employment offer, demonstrated progress in the Training Centre and lack of permanent medical disability), the Court concluded the Training Centre order could be set aside and substituted with a two-year probation order subject to supervision and conditions restricting association with known triad elements.
23 Apr 1979

WAI YAU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WAI YAU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC182/1979

The Court held that for a 19‑year‑old underprivileged offender who pleaded guilty, despite the seriousness of the robbery the sentences of nine months and one month should be quashed and substituted by detention in a training centre because rehabilitation would be more beneficial; leave to appeal out of time was granted for those sentences.
30 May 1978

CHAN KAM-CHAU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN KAM-CHAU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC466/1978

Section 33(2) of the Public Order Ordinance provides exhaustive sentencing powers for the offence; a detention centre order was not an authorized sentence and therefore unlawful. The lawful substitute sentence is the statutory mandatory minimum of six months' imprisonment (running from the date of the original order), with a one month sentence for the other offence to run concurrently, producing an effective total of six months' imprisonment.