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
- DCCC464/2023
法院根據既有上訴庭量刑參考，為各項控罪訂出量刑起點（三合會成員行事：15或9個月；襲擊致實際傷害：9個月；縱火：36個月；棄期出庭：3個月），然後因被告認罪給予三分之一扣減，並視案件調查與律政司處理造成的檢控延誤再作減刑或給予緩刑。結果採用總量刑原則確定最終刑罰及分期執行。
Hong Kong Case Law
Triad society offence
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
- DCCC599/2024
法庭根據各罪之既定量刑基準，並綜合考慮罪行性質、被告在犯罪中的角色、使用武器及傷勢、被告的認罪及個人背景，及案件存在多年檢控延誤等減刑因素，故對部分被告減低量刑基準並在若干個案下改為緩刑或下調刑期；縱火罪由於公共利益重大但案情非最嚴重類別，故採取36個月為基準再減至18個月，並就各被告分別確定並下達即時或緩刑及賠償命令。
11 Jun 2015
HKSAR v. NG SIK KEI AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HKSAR v. NG SIK KEI AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC233/2012
The Court refused to admit the proposed fresh evidence because it was wholly incredible and tainted by the applicants' repeated unsuccessful post‑trial attempts to impeach the accomplices; the fresh evidence would not have produced a different verdict. The trial judge's summing up was balanced and accurate. Accordingly leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused and both applications for leave to appeal convictions were dismissed (the 1st applicant's sentence appeal was not pursued and dismissed).
28 Apr 2014
HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA71/2014
Application for bail pending appeal dismissed because applicant's own delay undermined the time basis and the appeal was not shown to be reasonably arguable prima facie: the magistrate's credibility findings and her approach to drawing inferences were not shown to be erroneous.
14 Dec 2012
HKSAR v. CHAN CHI KIN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHAN CHI KIN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC542/2011
The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to produce fresh, specific evidence sufficient to show a prima facie prospect of success on appeal; the appended statements were unspecific about alleged falsehoods, contradicted prior instructions, and the complained matters had been considered and rejected in trial preparation, so bail was not justified.
13 Jul 2007
HKSAR v. SO LOI AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HKSAR v. SO LOI AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC189/2006
The appellate court held the trial judge properly assessed the minor discrepancies as immaterial, his credibility findings were entitled to deference, there was no lurking doubt to render the conviction unsafe, and it was appropriate to exercise the statutory power under section 83W Cap.221 to direct that three months of pre-appeal custody not be counted towards D1's three-year sentence given the appeal lacked merit.
17 Apr 2007
HKSAR v. MUI TAK MING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MUI TAK MING
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1093/2006
The one-to-one confrontation produced identification evidence that was inherently unreliable and tenuous; the Magistrate failed to adequately assess the weaknesses of that procedure given the two-year lapse and the witness's undercover role, so the identification could not be safely relied upon and the conviction was quashed.
1 Aug 2006
HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD AZAM
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD AZAM
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC55/2006
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly evaluated evidence and credibility, the conviction was safely supported beyond reasonable doubt, and the sentence, including a global term of three years, was within principled limits and not manifestly excessive.
13 Jul 2006
HKSAR v. LAU KONG KEUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LAU KONG KEUNG
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC204/2005
Because the applicant was aware of the nature and effect of the abandonment and deliberately signed it, there was no basis to treat the abandonment as a nullity and the application to set it aside is dismissed.
13 Jan 2006
YIP LAI YING v. HKSAR
- Citation
- YIP LAI YING v. HKSAR
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC80/2005
Given the magistrate's accepted primary findings (applicant heard discussions, saw weapons, remained with the group through the confrontation) it was reasonable to infer she knowingly lent herself to a triad show of strength and thereby acted as a member of a triad society; no error of law or departure from acceptable inference‑drawing was shown, so leave to appeal is refused.