Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlawful possession

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2012

HKSAR v. MARLESE MBACHU

Citation

HKSAR v. MARLESE MBACHU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC190/2012

The appropriate starting point for the trafficking offence is 18 years for the quantity involved, with a one-year enhancement for importation producing a 19-year starting point; applying a 45% discount for guilty plea and mitigation yields a sentence of 10 years and 4 months for count 2; counsel was not ineffective and medical or family hardships did not justify a larger reduction.
22 Nov 2011

HKSAR v. LE VAN SON

Citation

HKSAR v. LE VAN SON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA529/2011

The Court held the overall sentence of 22 months imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate and not wrong in principle and therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence.
6 Dec 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHOR KIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHOR KIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1392/1989

Because the magistrate's findings show unqualified reliance on evidence elicited about police inquiries at the Luk Kwok site which was hearsay and inadmissible for proving that site as the source, and because the record gives rise to a real possibility the magistrate disbelieved the appellant on that impermissible basis, the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
10 Aug 1989

THE QUEEN v. WONG YI-MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG YI-MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA753/1989

Because the Crown offered no evidence on a related charge and had a policy limiting prosecution of first-time illegal entrants not in groups, the Crown should have indicated whether it would proceed with the primary charge; failure to do so rendered the sentence unsafe and required setting aside the 15-month sentence.
9 Sept 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KAM-CHIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KAM-CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA680/1988

Conviction for unlawful possession was upheld because there was ample evidence and the charge was read and explained; however the sentences for the three offences of giving false information to a pawnbroker were manifestly excessive and were reduced from four months each to two weeks each, to be served consecutively and consecutive to the three month unlawful possession sentence.
24 Nov 1982

CHAM KAM SUM AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAM KAM SUM AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC968/1982

The appeal was allowed and convictions quashed because the Section 30 conviction was procedurally defective (defendants were not asked to plead and Section 27 procedure was not followed) and the theft conviction was rendered unsafe by inadequate handling of an unrecorded oral admission, absence of a proper ruling and foundation for photographic identification, and by delay; these defects justified appellate intervention despite general reluctance to disturb factual findings.
22 Apr 1981

YU WING-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YU WING-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC249/1981

Given the appellant was a first offender with strong mitigation (favourable probation report, stable employment and family ties), the amount involved did not justify immediate imprisonment; the custodial sentence of one month was excessive and was properly substituted by a fine of $500 on appeal.
25 Sept 1974

CHAN MING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN MING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC759/1974

Given the facts, including prior convictions, the magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion and the impossibility of placement in a training centre due to medical refusal, the sentences were not shown to be wrong and the appeal was dismissed; the proper forum to address the breach of probation is the magistrate.
11 Apr 1973

TSOI TAK FAI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSOI TAK FAI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC224/1973

The court held that the aggregate sentence of sixteen months was manifestly excessive; it reduced the sentence for going equipped for stealing to the established norm of six months and adjusted concurrency so that the overall term became nine months, while affirming that prior leniency is relevant but did not justify the original aggregate sentence.
1 Dec 1972

HUI CHAU CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUI CHAU CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC764/1972

The magistrate accepted the prosecution witness and found the defence raised no doubt; on that evidence the court concluded there was no basis to disturb the factual findings and dismissed the appeal.