{"id":140,"date":"2018-05-07T18:24:05","date_gmt":"2018-05-07T10:24:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/?p=140"},"modified":"2019-01-07T19:31:31","modified_gmt":"2019-01-07T11:31:31","slug":"sentencing-toc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/?p=140","title":{"rendered":"Sentencing &#8211; TOC"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>General Sentencing Principles<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>overview of sentencing approaches &#8211; <em><a href=\"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/?p=122\">R v Sargeant<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 74 [useful quote: &#8220;<strong>\u88ab\u544a\u4eba\u5df2\u7d93\u88ab\u95dc\u62bc&#8230;\uff0c\u5df2\u53d7\u904e\u7262\u7344\u4e4b\u82e6\uff0c\u76e3\u7344\u9435\u9396\u92c3\u943a\u4e4b\u8072\u5c07\u6c38\u9060\u5728\u88ab\u544a\u8033\u908a\u7e08\u7e5e\uff0c\u63d0\u9192\u4ed6\u4ee5\u5f8c\u8981\u751f\u6027\u505a\u4eba\uff0c\u4e0d\u518d\u72af\u4e8b<\/strong>&#8221; &#8211; &#8220;<em><strong>&#8230;It is his memory of the clanging of prison gates which is likely to keep him from crime in the future<\/strong><\/em>.&#8221;]<\/li>\n<li>wherever possible, avoid imposing deterrent sentence upon a first offender &#8211; <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2003\/240.html\">Chan Chi Ming<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[2003] 3 HKLRD 654; HCMA 115\/2003 (15 July 2003) [should have asked for CSO reports before giving sentence, citing Bokhary JA&#8217;s quote in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/1994\/40.html\"><em>AG v Ng Sai Man<\/em><\/a> [1994] 1 HKC 151; CAAR 11\/1993 (25 January 1994), at [15] &#8211; &#8220;<em><strong>if is not necessary to send a man to prison for very long it may well not necessary to send him to prison at all<\/strong><\/em>&#8221; &#8211; for the quote only, a deterrent sentence was actually justified in this case] &#8211; <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong><em>CAVEAT:<\/em><\/strong><\/span> Good character\/first-time offending is no bar to a deterrent sentence should the circumstances demand it &#8211; <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/1998\/714.html\">Chan Mo Kong<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[1998] 1 HKLRD 678; HCMA 194\/1998 (17 April 1998) &#8211;\u00a0In <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/1979\/98.html\">R v Ng Tat Shing &amp; Anor<\/a><\/em> [1977-1979] HKC 71 it was noted that although the general rule may be that an accused person of clear record would not normally be given a deterrent sentence, there were exceptions in certain cases. The exceptions include trafficking in drugs, kidnapping and cases where there was an element of corruption.<\/li>\n<li>deterrence <em>in personam<\/em> or <em>in rem<\/em>? <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/1998\/152.html\"><em>Hiroyuki Takeda<\/em><\/a> [1998] 1 HKLRD 931 [<em><strong>&#8220;9. Where deterrence is the paramount consideration because of the particular facts or circumstances of the case, then a robust approach to sentencing is appropriate [per Li V-P in AG. v. TANG King-ming [1986] HKLR 211]. A deterrent sentence may be in personam or in rem. Normally if the circumstances that pertain to an offender are such that the court is of the opinion that it must be brought home to him that he is not to commit such offences again, for example, a repeat offender, a deterrent sentence in personam is proper. When an offence is, inter alia, so prevalent or is so serious within its class, and the court is of the opinion that those of like minds are to be strongly discouraged from committing the same or similar offences, then a deterrent sentence in rem is called for.&#8221;<\/strong><\/em>] &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2001\/1255.html\"><em>Law Haw Moon<\/em><\/a>\u00a0HCMA 1132\/2001 (27 December 2001) [<em><strong>&#8220;6. &#8230; However, as a general rule, although it is not wrong in principle to pass a deterrent sentence in personam on a first offender, a deterrent sentence in rem on a first offender is generally wrong in principle, (see the case of HKSAR v. Hiroyuki Takeda [1998] HKCFI 152; [1998] 1 HKLRD 931). That case of course was dealing with quite a different offence, an offence of publishing obscene article but the principle remains the same.&#8221;<\/strong><\/em>]<\/li>\n<li>deterrence needed for persistent re-offending as a protection of the public &#8211; <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/1999\/320.html\">Chan Pui Chi<\/a><\/em> [1999] 2 HKLRD 830<\/li>\n<li>deterrence &#8211; reoffenders &#8211; proportionality of the deterrent sentence &#8211; increase from the last sentence a factor of consideration &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2018\/2794.html\">\u9ec3\u83ef\u6170<\/a> [2018] HKCFI 2794, para. 15.<\/li>\n<li>mental illness &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2002\/116.html\"><em>Chiu Peng Richard<\/em><\/a> [2002] 1 HKLRD 185; [2002] 1 HKC 401; CACC 287\/2001 (29 January 2002)<\/li>\n<li>deprivation of children&#8217;s care by reason of sentences &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2002\/121.html\"><em>Chan Kin Chung &amp; Anor<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2002] HKCA 121; [2002] 4 HKC 314; CACC 299\/2001 (5 September 2002) &#8211; survey of authorities &#8211; its basis on the\u00a0<em>balanced<\/em> approach of sentencing; not\u00a0residual merciful discretion<\/li>\n<li>prevalence &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bailii.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Crim\/2016\/552.html\"><em>Bondzie<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2016] Crim LR 591 &#8211; applications in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bailii.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Crim\/2017\/592.html\">Khalid<\/a><\/em> [2017] EWCA Crim 592 (12 April 2017) or <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bailii.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Crim\/2017\/1011.html\">Ajayi &amp; Anor<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[2017] EWCA Crim 1011 (13 July 2017) &#8211; in the local context, see also <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/legis\/ord\/455\/s27.html\">s. 27<\/a> of OSCO<\/li>\n<li>determining prevalence and the role of magistrates &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2018\/2794.html\">\u9ec3\u83ef\u6170<\/a> [2018] HKCFI 2794 [<em><strong>&#8220;13. \u300c\u6feb\u6536\u8eca\u8cc7\u300d\u662f\u5341\u5206\u56b4\u91cd\u7684\u554f\u984c &#8230; \u4f5c\u70ba\u4e3b\u4efb\u88c1\u5224\u5b98\uff0c\u7f85\u88c1\u5224\u5b98\u5fc5\u5b9a\u77ad\u89e3\u5340\u5167\u7684\u7f6a\u6848\u8da8\u52e2\u3002\u4ed6\u7576\u7136\u6709\u6b0a\u5224\u65b7\uff0c\u54ea\u4e9b\u7f6a\u884c\u9700\u8981\u6253\u64ca\u548c\u56b4\u61f2\u3002&#8221;<\/strong><\/em>]<\/li>\n<li>protecting HK&#8217;s reputation &#8211; refer to research notes<\/li>\n<li>Sentencing Guidelines and the use of precedents &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2004\/922.html\"><em>Lau Sau King<\/em><\/a> (unrep., HCMA 701\/2004, Lugar-Mawson J, 14 September 2004) [<em>&#8220;14. It must be remembered that <strong>sentencing guidelines are the exception, not the rule<\/strong>. <strong>Where guidelines are laid down and principles established, this should be done by the collective wisdom of three judges in the Court of Appeal and announced as such<\/strong>. Further, the Court of Appeal emphasized in R v. Lou Wah Theam [1997] HKCA 118; [1997] 1 HKC 412, at page 415C, that: \u201c<strong>Where this court intends to provide sentencing tariffs for any specific offence it makes it clear that the case is a guideline case<\/strong>.\u201d 15. <strong>Most appellate judgments<\/strong> on sentencing, both of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, do no more than uphold, reduce, or increase a particular sentence. They <strong>are no more than examples of how a particular court has dealt with a particular offender in relation to the particular circumstances of his offence. They are not intended to provide guidance for the future. They are certainly not authorities, let alone binding precedents, and they should not be cited in argument. Although the Court of Appeal has repeatedly deprecated the citation of comparable decisions which do not purport to establish any principle, or provide any guidelines, practitioners continue to pray them in aid, as was the case in this appeal<\/strong>.&#8221;<\/em>]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Guilty Plea<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2016\/396.html\"><em>Ngo Van Nam<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2016] 5 HKLRD 1; [2016] 5 HKC 231; CACC 418\/2014 (2 September 2016)<\/li>\n<li>Empirical study &#8211; Cheng, Chui, Young &amp; Ong, &#8216;<a href=\"http:\/\/getliner.com\/webpdf\/web\/viewer.html?file=f42339c1b3179ea7dd45f5277c2ba461c42ce6b7.pdf\">Why Do Criminal Trials \u2018Crack\u2019 ?An Empirical Investigation of Late Guilty Pleas in Hong Kong<\/a>&#8216;\u00a0[2018] Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Binding Over<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>legal certainty over &#8220;good behaviour&#8221; &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfa\/2003\/13.html\"><em>Lau Wai Wo<\/em><\/a> [2004] 1 HKLRD 372; (2003) 6 HKCFAR 624; FACC 5\/2003 (19 December 2003), following <a href=\"http:\/\/www.worldlii.org\/eu\/cases\/ECHR\/1998\/95.html\"><em>Steel v UK <\/em><\/a>[1998] ECHR 95<\/li>\n<li>\u7121\u5211\u4e8b\u7d00\u9304\uff0c\u66f4\u7121\u66b4\u529b\u884c\u70ba\u524d\u79d1\uff0c\u4e0d\u61c9\u55ae\u6191\u4e00\u6b21\u7684\u4e8b\u4ef6(\u5c24\u5176\u662f\u7d93\u5be9\u8a0a\u5f8c\u4ed6\u88c1\u5b9a\u88ab\u544a\u4eba\u7f6a\u540d\u4e0d\u6210\u7acb\u7684\u6848\u4ef6)\uff0c\u5728\u7121\u8b49\u64da\u3001\u7121\u524d\u79d1\u986f\u793a\u88ab\u544a\u4eba\u5c07\u6703\u5c0d\u4ed6\u4eba\u6216\u8ca1\u7522\u65bd\u4ee5\u66b4\u529b\u3001\u6216\u5a01\u8105\u65bd\u4ee5\u66b4\u529b\u3001\u6216\u5c07\u6703\u4f5c\u51fa\u884c\u70ba\u4ee4\u4ed6\u4eba\u6709\u7406\u7531\u6050\u6015\u6b64\u7b49\u66b4\u529b\u5c07\u6703\u51fa\u73fe\u7684\u60c5\u6cc1\u4e0b\uff0c\u8981\u88ab\u544a\u4eba\u7c3d\u4fdd &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2017\/15.html\">\u8a31\u667a\u5cef<\/a> [2018] 1 HKLRD 145; [2017] 4 HKC 318; HCMA 693\/2015 (9 January 2017)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Community Service Order<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em><a href=\"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/?p=128\">R v Brown (Mark Andrew)<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(1981) 3 Cr. App. R. (S.) 294 &#8211; adopted into Hong Kong in <em>Chow Chak Man<\/em>\u00a0[1999] 3 HKLRD 37 [although result of that case has been criticised in e.g.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2001\/176.html\"><em>Wong Yiu-kuen<\/em><\/a> [2002] 1 HKLRD 712;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2002\/87.html\"><em>Po Yan Chuen<\/em><\/a> [2002] 2 HKC 712 at 714]<\/li>\n<li>Whether the court in <em>R v Brown<\/em>\u00a0was laying down a conjunctive list of criteria?\u00a0 &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2002\/902.html\"><em>Sek Siu Fun<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2002] 4 HKC 369; HCMA 1126\/2001 (16 July 2002) &#8211; R v Brown itself is not a &#8220;guideline case&#8221; in the true sense &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2006\/72.html\"><em>Wan Ka Kit<\/em><\/a> [2006] 3 HKLRD 9 [<strong><em>&#8220;28. The court [in R v Brown], in other words, was not restricting the factors to be taken into account for the purposes of making a community serviceorder to the six which they had mentioned. Nor was it insisting that all six factors should necessarily be present, although wewould think that in the vast majority of cases where such an order was appropriate most, if not all, of these factors would be present&#8221;<\/em><\/strong>]<\/li>\n<li>Even if a community service order was appropriate for a defendant, a magistrate was not bound to impose that order &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2001\/15.html\"><em>SJ v Lin Min Ying &amp; Another<\/em><\/a> [2001] HKCA 15; [2002] 3 HKC 415; CAAR 7\/2001 (16 October 2001) &#8211; unless the defendant was made have\u00a0reasonable expectation of a non-custodial sentence &#8211;\u00a0<em>R v Gillam<\/em> [1980] 2 Cr. App. R (S.) 267<\/li>\n<li>genuine remorse, civil disobedience &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2017\/320.html\">\u5f8b\u653f\u53f8\u53f8\u9577 \u8a34 \u9ec3\u4e4b\u92d2\u53ca\u53e6\u4e8c\u4eba<\/a> [2017] 5 HKC 116; CAAR 4\/2016 (17 August 2017);\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2017\/361.html\">\u5f8b\u653f\u53f8\u53f8\u9577 \u5c0d \u6881\u66c9\u6698\u53ca\u53e6\u5341\u4e8c\u4eba<\/a> [2018] 1 HKLRD 702; [2017] 6 HKC 114; CAAR 3\/2016 (11 September 2017)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Suspended Sentence<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Activation of suspended sentences &#8211; s. 109C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 [in\u00a0<em>R v Li Kim Wai<\/em>\u00a0[1980] HKLR 833, at 834,\u00a0Huggins JA said of the approach to be taken by the courts to section 109C: <em>\u201cWe think it is important that suspended sentences should be activated where the law so requires, otherwise suspended sentences lose all their effectiveness. The whole purpose behind the suspended sentence is that a defendant shall know that if he commits a further offence he will go to prison on an activated sentence, save in exceptional circumstances, and those exceptional circumstances will rarely occur.\u201d<\/em>]<\/li>\n<li>To run consecutively or concurrently? &#8211;\u00a0<em>R v Ithell<\/em> (1969) 53 Cr App R 210, where Edmund Davies LJ said at p 212: <em>&#8220;The proper approach, where a fresh offence has been committed during the period of suspension of an earlier sentence and the wrongdoer is brought before the court, is that the court should first sentence him in respect of the fresh offence by punishment appropriate to that offence, and thereafter address itself to the question of the suspended sentence\u2026<strong>unless there are some quite exceptional circumstances, the suspended sentence should be ordered to run consecutively to the sentence given for the current offence<\/strong>.&#8221;\u00a0<\/em>[recent application in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2008\/135.html\">SfJ v\u00a0 Chan Ka Wah<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[2008] HKCA 135; [2008] 4 HKC 532; CAAR 5\/2007 (16 April 2008)]<\/li>\n<li>Not activated due to Case Nature and Proximity to Expiry &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2000\/1889.html\"><em>Fung Shun Kwai<\/em>\u00a0\u99ae\u9806\u8cb4<\/a> [1995-2000] HKCLRT 517 (Chinese Original); 521 (English Translation); HCMA 532\/2000 (27 June 2000) [c.f.\u00a0<em>R v Li Kim Wai<\/em> [1980] HKLR 833, where\u00a0Huggins JA said \u201c<strong>\u2026mere dissimilarity between offences does not make it unjust<\/strong>\u201d &#8211; recent application in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2017\/114.html\">Keita Ali<\/a><\/em> CACC 419\/2015 (21 March 2017)]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Training Centre<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfa\/2001\/73.html\"><em>Wong Chun Cheong v HKSAR<\/em><\/a> [2000] 3 HKLRD 840; (2001) 4 HKCFAR 12; [2001] 1 HKC 1; FACC 9\/2000 (8 January 2001) [whether appropriate to impose TCO where the minimum period of detention equals to or exceeds the maximum period of imprisonment for the offence &#8211; jurisprudential aspect of the issue &#8211; JS Mill, Hart cited &#8211; resolved by statutory interpretation of s. 4(1) of the Training Centre Ordinance, Cap. 280 &#8211; meaning of &#8220;in the interest of\u00a0 community&#8221;\/&#8221;the circumstances of the offence&#8221;\/&#8221;in lieu of any other sentence&#8221; &#8211; principles re: TCO summarised at para. 41]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Forfeiture Order<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Nature &amp; General Principles &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfa\/2009\/67.html\"><em>Wong Hon Sun <\/em>(\u9ec3\u701a\u7b19)<\/a>\u00a0(2009) 12 HKCFAR 877; [2010] 1 HKC 18; FACC 1\/2009 (24 July 2009)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2011\/510.html\"><em>Chan Chi Wai, Jimmy<\/em><\/a> [2011] 4 HKLRD 302; [2011] 5 HKC 144; HCCC 300\/2010 (2 August 2011)<\/li>\n<li>under Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance &#8211;\u00a0<em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2015\/417.html?stem=&amp;synonyms=&amp;query=%22chan%20chi%20wai%20jimmy%22\">NGOMA Juma Shabani<\/a><\/em>\u00a0 [2015] 5 HKLRD 57; [2015] 5 HKC 447; CACC 214\/2014 (2 September 2015)<\/li>\n<li>CA&#8217;s discussion on procedure, with McWalters JA&#8217;s dissent &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/cgi-bin\/sinodisp\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2015\/140.html\"><em>Shoki Fatuma Ramadhani<\/em><\/a> [2015] 2 HKLRD 696; [2015] 4 HKC 55; CACC 187\/2014 (30 March 2015)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Common Assault &amp; AOABH<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>involving domestic helpers as victims &#8211; refer to previous research<\/li>\n<li>throwing stuff at politicians &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2015\/677.html\">\u9673\u5fb7\u7ae0<\/a>\u00a0HCMA 741\/2014 (29 April 2015)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Fraud, involving breach of trust &#8211; refer to previous research<\/p>\n<p>Money laundering &#8211; refer to <em>quantum table<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Unlawful intercourse with underage girls (ss. 123 \/ 124) &#8211; refer to <em>quantum table<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Armed robbery &#8211; <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/1981\/62.html\">Mo Kwong-sang<\/a><\/em> [1981] HKLR 610, affirmed in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2000\/683.html\">Secretary for Justice v Ma Ping Wah<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[2000] 2 HKC 566<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>monetary loss of the victim not the primary concern in sentencing because &#8220;it&#8217;s not the gravamen of the offence&#8221; &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2008\/654.html\">\u6797\u4fca\u5357<\/a> [2008] 2 HKCLRT 133<\/li>\n<li>the victim&#8217;s perception of whether the defendant was armed vs whether the defendant was actually armed? Is the distinction artificial? <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/1995\/318.html\"><em>Yu Tai Wing<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[1995] HKCA 318; [1995] 1 HKC 837; CACC 454\/1994 (28 February 1995) [Macdougall VP &#8211; <em>&#8220;14. <strong>For policy reasons we take the view that<\/strong> in the case of bank robberies, jewellery shop and goldsmith shop robberies, security van or payroll robberies and such the like, <strong>no distinction should be made between cases where genuine firearms are used but not discharged and those in which imitation firearms are used<\/strong>. Obviously the risk that a loaded genuine firearm carried by a robber might be discharged in the course of such robbery does not exist where the robber is armed with an imitation firearm. <strong>But the chance that the police or security guards who are called to or happen upon the scene might open fire in the course of such robberies cannot be overlooked. The risk of innocent bystanders being killed or injured is always present in circumstances where decisions have to be made in split seconds<\/strong>&#8220;<\/em>];\u00a0<em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2005\/673.html\">On Ling<\/a><\/em> [2005] HKCA 673; [2005] 1 HKC 227; CACC 386\/2004 (4 January 2005) [<em>Yu Tai Wing<\/em> distinguished on the ground that the case should not be regarded as an armed robbery]; revisited in <a href=\"http:\/\/legalref.judiciary.hk\/lrs\/common\/ju\/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=115208&amp;currpage=T\"><em>TAM Tak-cheung<\/em> (<span lang=\"ZH-CN\">\u8b5a\u5fb7\u7965<\/span>)<\/a> CACC 209\/2017 [<em>On Ling <\/em>approach questioned &#8211; discussed whether the victim &#8220;could see&#8221;\/&#8221;would have believed&#8221;\/&#8221;would be reasonable to believe&#8221; &#8211; but did not resolved the issue because emphasis was on the seriousness of the offence &#8211; <em>&#8220;<strong>23. I have to say, respectfully, that I have difficulty with the reasoning in HKSAR v On Ling<\/strong>, where the Court held that the purported carrying of a weapon, which was in fact a roll of newspapers, took the case outside the Mo Kwong Sang v R guidelines. <strong>It is no consolation to the terrified victim of a robbery that, contrary to the defendant\u2019s claim, there was in fact no weapon when he said, and the victim believed, that there was<\/strong>. <strong>Nevertheless, the facts in HKSAR v On Ling were somewhat different. There, the victim was able to see that what was pointed at him was in fact a roll of newspapers, before he immediately collapsed on the ground out of fright<\/strong>.&#8221;<\/em>]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Theft by pickpocketing &#8211; tariff &#8211;\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2004\/283.html\"><em>Ngo Van Huy<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2005] 2 HKLRD 1 &#8211;\u00a0should not be regarded as\u00a0immutable or ceiling &#8211; categories of aggravating features not closed [Macrae J&#8217;s (as he then was) in\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2013\/437.html\"><em>Sandagdorj Altankhuyag &amp; Anor<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2014] 1 HKC 206] &#8211; \u53ef\u56e0\u52a0\u5211\u56e0\u7d20\u504f\u96e2\u6e96\u5247\uff0c\u4f46\u6cd5\u5ead\u9808\u9867\u53ca\u6848\u60c5 (\u4f46\u4e26\u975e\u52a0\u5211\u56e0\u7d20)\uff0c\u5305\u62ec\u5931\u7269\u7684\u50f9\u503c\u3001\u53d7\u5bb3\u4eba\u5e74\u7d00\u53ca\u72af\u6848\u624b\u6cd5\u7b49\u7b49\u3002\u6cd5\u5ead\u9808\u907f\u514d\u5728\u63a1\u7d0d12\u81f315 \u500b\u6708\u5728\u4f55\u8655\u8457\u58a8\u6642\uff0c\u8003\u616e\u4e86\u300c\u52a0\u5211\u300d\u56e0\u7d20\uff0c\u56e0\u800c\u5f15\u81f4\u300c\u96d9\u91cd\u8a08\u7b97\u300d- <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2010\/303.html\"><em>Chiu Suet Yee Angel<\/em> (\u8d99\u96ea\u5100)<\/a>\u00a0(unrep., CACC 105\/2010, Barnes J, 27 October 2010)<\/p>\n<p>Theft by shoplifting &#8211;\u00a0\u5728<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2013\/669.html\">\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u5225\u884c\u653f\u5340\u8a34\u694a\u8277\u96f2<\/a>\u00a0[[2014] 1 HKLRD 546] HCMA 54\/2013 (\u672a\u7d93\u5f59\u7de8\uff0c2013\u5e744\u670830 \u65e5)\uff0c\u80e1\u570b\u8208\u6cd5\u5b98\u6307\u51fa\uff1a- <em>\u201c17. \u2026 \u6cd5\u5ead\u5c0d\u65bc\u7a4d\u72af\u6216\u6163\u72af\u7684\u5224\u5211\u6c92\u4f8b\u5916\u5730\u5224\u8655\u76e3\u7981\u6216\u63d0\u5347\u5211\u671f\u3002\u5982\u679c\u6d89\u6848\u7684\u7269\u54c1\u5f88\u5c0f\u3001\u50cf\u65e5\u5e38\u4e00\u822c\u98f2\u54c1\u98df\u7269\uff0c\u800c\u50f9\u503c\u4e5f\u4e0d\u9ad8\uff0c\u6cd5\u5ead\u5c0d\u521d\u72af\u8005\u591a\u6703\u5224\u4ee5\u7f70\u6b3e\uff0c\u4f46\u662f\u5c0d\u65bc\u91cd\u72af\u8005\uff0c\u800c\u6240\u6d89\u7269\u54c1\u50f9\u503c\u8d85\u904e$100\u4ee5\u4e0a\uff0c\u6700\u4f4e\u7684\u91cf\u5211\u57fa\u6e96\u70ba3\u500b\u6708\u76e3\u7981\uff0c\u540c\u985e\u524d\u79d1\u8d8a\u591a\u5247\u91cf\u5211\u57fa\u6e96\u63d0\u5347\u8d8a\u9ad8\u3002\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Possession of forged identity card &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkca\/2005\/678.html\"><em>Li Chang Li <\/em>(\u674e\u9577\u5229)<\/a>\u00a0[2005] 1 HKLRD 864 [<em>&#8220;40. In our judgment, for the offence of possessing a forged identity card or identity card belonging to another, even if the offender\u2019s presence in Hong Kong is lawful, the starting point upon a plea of guilty should ordinarily be 12 months\u2019 imprisonment, so as to reflect the seriousness of the offence and serve deterrent purposes. 41. If the offender has actually produced or used a forged identity card or identity card belonging to another in order to conceal his identity, work illegally or unlawfully further his stay in Hong Kong, then the starting point upon a plea of guilty should be 15 months\u2019 imprisonment.&#8221;<\/em>] &#8211; overruled V Bokhary J&#8217;s &#8220;guidelines&#8221; in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2000\/963.html\"><em>Chan Man Mo<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[2001] 1 HKLRD 121 &#8211; previous inconsistencies between <em>Chan Man Mo<\/em> and <em>Shamin Nawaz\u00a0<\/em>[1994] HKCLR 195 (Barnett J); see discussion in e.g. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2004\/922.html\"><em>Lau Sau King<\/em><\/a> (unrep., HCMA 701\/2004, Lugar-Mawson J, 14 September 2004)<\/p>\n<p>Management vice establishment &#8211;\u00a0\u9ad8\u7b49\u6cd5\u9662\u66ab\u59d4\u6cd5\u5b98\u675c\u6e8e\u5cf0 (\u7576\u6642\u5b98\u968e) \u5728\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u5225\u884c\u653f\u5340 \u8a34\u6797\u8a69\u742a\u53ca\u53e6\u4e00\u4eba [2005] 3 HKLRD 273\uff0c\u7b2c279\u9801\u8868\u793a\uff1a \u300c 15. \u5f9eHKSAR v Lee Tang Yau HCMA 602\/2011\u8207\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u5225\u884c\u653f\u5340 \u8a34 \u5f35\u62db\u8ca1\u53ca\u53e6\u4e00\u4eba HCMA 531\/2003\u5169\u4ef6\u6848\u53ef\u898b\uff0c\u6cd5\u5ead\u666e\u904d\u8a8d\u540c\u7ba1\u7406\u8ce3\u6deb\u5834\u6240\u7684\u91cf\u5211\u8d77\u9ede\u70ba\u5341\u4e8c\u500b\u6708\u76e3\u7981\u3002\u672c\u5e2d\u8a8d\u70ba\u5728\u91d0\u5b9a\u91cf\u5211\u8d77\u9ede\u6642\uff0c\u88c1\u5224\u5b98\u61c9\u8003\u616e\u6709\u95dc\u8ce3\u6deb\u5834\u6240\u7684\u898f\u6a21\u3001\u904b\u4f5c\u6a21\u5f0f\u3001\u6240\u63d0\u4f9b\u7684\u8ce3\u6deb\u6d3b\u52d5\u3001\u5834\u6240\u7684\u9762\u7a4d\u3001\u50f1\u54e1\u7684\u4eba\u6578\u3001\u5993\u5973\u7684\u4eba\u6578\u3001\u9867\u5ba2\u7684\u6578\u76ee\u3001\u6240\u6536\u53d6\u7684\u8cbb\u7528\u3001\u71df\u696d\u5229\u6f64\u8207\u71df\u696d\u984d\u7b49\u3002\u4e00\u822c\u7684\u8ce3\u6deb\u5834\u6240\u50f1\u7528\u4e0d\u8d85\u904e\u4e94\u540d\u50f1\u54e1\u53ca\u4e0d\u8d85\u904e\u5341\u540d\u5993\u5973\uff0c\u7ba1\u7406\u6a21\u5f0f\u8f03\u70ba\u7c21\u55ae\u3002\u672c\u5e2d\u8a8d\u70ba\u7ba1\u7406\u9019\u985e\u8ce3\u6deb\u5834\u6240\u7684\u6070\u7576\u91cf\u5211\u8d77\u9ede\u662f\u5341\u4e8c\u500b\u6708\u76e3\u7981\u3002\u88c1\u5224\u5b98\u53ef\u8996\u4e4e\u8a72\u8ce3\u6deb\u5834\u6240\u7684\u898f\u6a21\u8207\u904b\u4f5c\u6a21\u5f0f\u91d0\u5b9a\u6070\u7576\u91cf\u5211\u8d77\u9ede\u3002\u6b64\u5916\uff0c\u88c1\u5224\u5b98\u4ea6\u53ef\u8003\u616e\u5176\u4ed6\u56b4\u91cd\u60c5\u6cc1\u800c\u63d0\u9ad8\u91cf\u5211\u8d77\u9ede\uff1a\u5982\u6240\u50f1\u7528\u5993\u5973\u7684\u5e74\u7d00\u3001 \u5979\u5011\u662f\u5426\u975e\u6cd5\u5c45\u6c11\u3001\u5979\u5011\u53ef\u5426\u5728\u9999\u6e2f\u53d7\u50f1\u50ad\u7b49\u3002\u5354\u52a9\u7ba1\u7406\u9019\u985e\u8ce3\u6deb\u5834\u6240\u7684\u6070\u7576\u91cf\u5211\u8d77\u9ede\u53ef\u4ee5\u6bd4\u7ba1\u7406\u8005\u70ba\u4f4e\uff0c \u4f46\u9019\u8996\u4e4e\u4ed6\u6240\u5354\u52a9\u7684\u6027\u8cea\u8207\u7a0b\u5ea6\u3002\u300d<\/p>\n<p>Road Traffic Offences<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Drunk driving &#8211; see <em>quantum table<\/em><\/li>\n<li>\u201cFailing to report an accident which involved damage\u201d, contrary to section 56(2A) and (6) &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/eng\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2017\/433.html\"><em>Wei, Edmund Chih Chan<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(unrep., HCMA237\/2016, Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang, 14 March 2017)<\/li>\n<li>Disqualification order &#8211;\u00a0\u9ad8\u9662\u539f\u8a1f\u5ead\u66ab\u59d4\u6cd5\u5b98\u9673\u5609\u4fe1 (\u7576\u6642\u5b98\u968e) \u5728<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.hk\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2015\/2193.html\">\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u5225\u884c\u653f\u5340\u8a34\u4f55\u70b3\u5d07<\/a> HCMA 603\/2015 \u4e00\u6848\u7b2c11\u6bb5\u6307\u51fa\uff0c\u505c\u724c\u4ee4\u7684\u9577\u77ed\u5fc5\u9808\u5728\u516c\u773e\u5229\u76ca\u548c\u4e0a\u8a34\u4eba\u7684\u500b\u4eba\u60c5\u6cc1\u4e4b\u9593\u53d6\u5f97\u5e73\u8861\u3002\u800c\u4e14\uff0c\u505c\u724c\u591a\u4e45\u624d\u7b97\u5408\u9069\uff0c\u4e26\u7121\u91cf\u5211\u6307\u5f15\uff0c\u4e00\u5207\u9808\u4ee5\u500b\u5225\u6848\u4ef6\u60c5\u6cc1\u800c\u5b9a &#8211;\u00a0\u9ad8\u9662\u539f\u8a1f\u6cd5\u5ead\u66ab\u59d4\u6cd5\u5b98\u5f35\u6167\u73b2 (\u7576\u6642\u5b98\u968e) \u5728<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hklii.org\/chi\/hk\/cases\/hkcfi\/2006\/1843.html\">\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u5225\u884c\u653f\u5340\u8a34\u8521\u6797\u98db<\/a> HCMA 539\/2006 \u4e00\u6848\u7b2c17\u6bb5\u8868\u793a\uff0c\u7576\u72af\u6848\u8005\u662f\u8077\u696d\u53f8\u6a5f\u6642\uff0c\u6cd5\u5ead\u4e00\u65b9\u9762\u9700\u8981\u8003\u616e\u300c\u505c\u724c\u300d\u5c0d\u4ed6\u69cb\u6210\u7684\u7d93\u6fdf\u56f0\u5883\uff0c\u5c24\u5176\u662f\u6703\u5426\u5c07\u72af\u6848\u8005\u300c\u903c\u4e0a\u6881\u5c71\u300d(\u5373\u4ee4\u4ed6\u7121\u6cd5\u7dad\u751f\u800c\u70ba\u975e\u4f5c\u6b79) \u3002\u53e6\u4e00\u65b9\u9762\uff0c\u6cd5\u5ead\u4ea6\u9808\u8003\u616e\u72af\u6848\u8005\u82e5\u4ee5\u5176\u4e0d\u6b63\u78ba\u7684\u99d5\u99db\u614b\u5ea6\u9577\u6642\u9593\u5728\u9053\u8def\u4e0a\u99d5\u99db\uff0c\u5c0d\u516c\u773e\u69cb\u6210\u5371\u5bb3\u7684\u98a8\u96aa\u3002\u6545\u6cd5\u5b98\/\u88c1\u5224\u5b98\u884c\u4f7f\u914e\u60c5\u6b0a\u6642\uff0c\u9700\u8003\u616e\u5982\u4f55\u5728\u5169\u8005\u4e4b\u9593\u53d6\u5f97\u5e73\u8861\u3002<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>General Sentencing Principles overview of sentencing approaches &#8211; R v Sargeant\u00a0(1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 74 [useful quote: &#8220;\u88ab\u544a\u4eba\u5df2\u7d93\u88ab\u95dc\u62bc&#8230;\uff0c\u5df2\u53d7\u904e\u7262\u7344\u4e4b\u82e6\uff0c\u76e3\u7344\u9435\u9396\u92c3\u943a\u4e4b\u8072\u5c07\u6c38\u9060\u5728\u88ab\u544a\u8033\u908a\u7e08\u7e5e\uff0c\u63d0\u9192\u4ed6\u4ee5\u5f8c\u8981\u751f\u6027\u505a\u4eba\uff0c\u4e0d\u518d\u72af\u4e8b&#8221; &#8211; &#8220;&#8230;It is his memory of the clanging of prison gates which is likely to keep him from crime in the future.&#8221;] wherever possible, avoid imposing deterrent sentence upon a first offender &#8211; Chan Chi Ming\u00a0[2003] [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=140"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":244,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140\/revisions\/244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}