LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure

Chapter 8: Mitigation and Sentencing

Learning objectives
1. Overview;
2. Factual basis for sentence;
Factors
affecting 3. Background of the accused;
sentence 4. Sentencing option generally;
5. Applying sentencing principles to mitigation;
6. Rehabilitation of offenders

1. Overview
1.1 General aspects of sentencing

Sentencing is a matter of the court. Deciding the proper and actual Yau Kwong Man v Secretary
of Security; R v Sargeant
punishment is the responsibility of the courts.

The maximum sentence that can be imposed is restricted by Re CW Reid

sentencing jurisdiction of the court.

The four principles of sentencing: HKSAR v Chan Pui

- Retribution Chi
- Deterrence
o Previous convictions are relevant and may result in
D receiving a longer sentence (persistent offender)
o Gravity of crime
- Prevention
- Rehabilitation

Sentence must be proportionate to D’s culpability; proportionate Wong Chun Cheong

punishment should be reconciled with reform. v HKSAR

1.2 Duties of Prosecution in sentencing

Prosecutor is in a position to advise the court on issues, e.g.

prevalence of offence, effect of crime, and background of accused.

Prosecutor should NOT:

- Influence the court in relation to the quantum of sentence
- Make representations about DOJ’s attitude

Prosecutor should:
- Adequately present the relevant facts
- Assist the court to avoid error of fact or law
- Respond to court’s request for information
- Fairly evaluable, test opposing case, and correct errors made
by the Defence
- Provide information from previous court decisions, stats
- Make submissions on the type NOT quantum of sentence

1
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

1.3 Role of Defence in sentencing

Defence has a duty to assist the court to avoid appealable error and HKSAR v Chan Yuk
must strive to correct any error of law or fact that becomes apparent. San

Duty rests of Defence to draw the court’s attention to the relevant HKSAR v Chan Wai
matters in mitigation. Kong
- Counsel has duty to put such mitigation as he feels HKSAR v Zhou
appropriate Jianguo

Assertion of fact by counsel in mitigation is not evidence and should R v Cheung Hong
be prepared to substantiate by calling evidence. Chung
- Matter of convenience that what is said in mitigation is HKSAR v Ngai Ho
generally accepted without calling evidence but counsel has Ting
to be prepared to make his mitigation good
- Where mitigation is not inherently incredible / inconsistent
with material before court: court is under a duty to notify
counsel that mitigation will not accepted and counsel has to
decide whether to make good the submission by evidence
- Where the point is not prima facie credible / consistent: it is
the counsel to recognise that he would have to call evidence

Evidential burden is on Defence. HKSAR v Ng Po On

- On the balance of probabilities HKSAR v Cheung Cho Fat

Court is entitled to reject implausible/fanciful mitigation without HKSAR v

calling a Newton Inquiry. Mohammad Nadim

Counsel should take instructions from Defendant before mitigation

and sentencing.

1.4 General procedure

Court cannot sentence a defendant for a crime that he has not been HKSAR v Yeung
charged with or convicted of. Chuen Tai

2. Factual basis for sentence

2.1 Generally

If D pleads guilty
- Brief Facts / Summary of Facts is submitted by Prosecution
- If D understand the plea, plea is recorded

If D is found guilty
- By magistrate / DC judge: Reasons for Verdict of the Court
- By CFI judge after jury verdict: judge’s own view of facts

Factors taken into account

- Role of D in crime; whether crime was planned; whether D
made use of position to commit crime; duration of crime;
extent of harm

2
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

2.2 Guilty plea of D – Brief Facts / Summary of Facts

Magistrates’ Courts
- Brief Facts prepared by Prosecution is read to D and D
would be asked whether he agreed with the allegations
- Brief narrative of the circumstances of the allegations
- Based on evidence available to P, a list of witnesses, exhibits
- Should be served with Charge Sheet before first appearance
before a magistrate

District Court
- After transfer proceedings, first hearing date is fixed MO s.90(1)(a)
- Heard in plea court
- Further charge sheet to be delivered to D
- Summary of Facts is also prepared by P
- Bundles of witness statements, exhibits and unused materials
are made available to D

Court of First Instance

- Serve necessary Committal Bundles to D before Return Day
- File and serve indictment after committal
- If D pleaded guilty before magistrate, then proceedings MO s.81B
directly committed to CFI for sentencing
- P then prepares the Summary of Facts

2.3 Newton Inquiry

Defence may first negotiate with Prosecution to ascertain whether

there can be a compromise.

Evidence in Newton Inquiry is restricted to issues in Brief Facts /

Summary of Facts. Witnesses may be called.

Burden on the P to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the facts

which may affect sentence.
- But evidential burden on D to raise an issue for court HSKAR v Ng Po On

3. Background of the accused

3.1 Antecedent statement

An antecedent statement is an un-cautioned statement taken from Law Chung Ki v

accused by police in order to enable them to inform the court of his HKSAR
antecedents for the purpose of sentence.

MC: the practice is to provide D’s criminal record without

antecedent statement to court.

DC: antecedent statement is provided at the time of sentencing.

CFI: it should be supplied in accordance with PD 9.3.

- Age, education, employment, date of arrest, date of last
discharge from prison, domestic and family circumstances
- Filed and served in accordance with procedural timetables

3
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

3.2 Previous convictions

The relevant certificates of conviction should be obtained to prove CPO s.63

previous convictions.

A person’s previous record is likely to be an aggravating factor for HKSAR v Ngo Wan
sentence because of (i) the need to impose deterrence sentence or (ii) Huy
the need to protect society from criminals like him. Court will be
justified to impose higher sentence.

4. Sentencing option generally

4.1 Imprisonment (note the sentencing jurisdiction of the court for
the said offence)

Sometimes, imprisonment may not be an option at all because of the

offence itself or the jurisdiction of the court (especially for Special
Magistrate).

Imprisonment guidelines from statutes

- No court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 CPO s.109A
years of age to imprisonment unless court is of opinion that
no other method of dealing with him is appropriate
- No child shall be sentenced to imprisonment; no JOO s.11
imprisonment for young person if he can be dealt with in any
other way

Sentencing guidelines from cases

- E.g. shoplifting: fine for first offender whole stole everyday HKSAR v Yang
food and beverages of low value; at least 3 months’ Yan-yun
imprisonment for repeat offence stealing an item exceeding
$100

4.2 Custodial sentences

Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (DATC)

- Circumstances of the case, character and previous conduct DATCO s.4(1)
that it is in his interest and in the public interest
- Between 2 to 12 months DATCO s.4(2)
- MUST consider report of suitability; D shall be remanded in DATCO s.4(3)
custody for not exceeding 3 weeks while awaiting report
- NO conviction shall be recorded when such order is made DATCO s.4(4)
unless circumstances warrant

Hospital Order
- Convicted by CFI/DC offence other than that with fixed MHO s.45(1)(a)(i),
sentence; or convicted by magistrate punishable on summary (ii)
conviction; or charged before magistrate
- Written/oral evidence of 2 registered medical practitioners MHO s.45(1)(b)
o Mentally disordered person
o Warrants detention in CSD Psychiatric Centre/
mental hospital
- The most suitable method of disposing the case MHO s.45(1)(c)
- Shall not be greater the sentence the court could impose

4
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

- Shall not impose imprisonment/fine/probation order MHO s.45(3)

4.3 Other forms of custodial sentences for young offender under 25

Generally
- Not sentence person over 16 or under 21 to imprisonment CPO s.109A
unless court is of opinion that there is no other appropriate
method of dealing with such person
- Order not to be invalidated by subsequent proof of age JOO s.19
- No child shall be sentenced to imprisonment / committed to JOO s.11(1)
prison in default of payment
- No young person shall be sentenced to imprisonment if he JOO s.11(2)
can be dealt with in any other way
o Imprisoned young person shall not be allowed to JOO s.11(3)
associate with adult prisoners
o Nature / prevalence of offence may warrant HKSAR v Law Ka
imprisonment Kit
- May remand defendant for not more than 3 weeks for
obtaining report of suitability
- Note that court can order detention, which is longer than the HKSAR v Wan
maximum imprisonment sentence allowed Hong Kin

Facility Age of offender Period of detention

DC 14 or above, under 21 1 to 6 mths
+ 12 mth supervision

21 or above, under 25 3 to 12 mths

+ 12 mth supervision
TC 14 or above, under 21 6 mths to 3 yrs
+ 3 yr supervision
RC 14 or above, under 21 3 to 9 mths
+ 12 mth supervision
RS 10 or above, under 16 1 to 3 yrs

Detention Centre (DC) [勞教中心]

- Hard and strenuous labour, physical training => short, sharp,
shock training within short period
- Applicable to offence punishable by imprisonment
- 1-6 months for 14 or above and under 21 DCO s.4(2)(a)
- 3-12 months for 21 or above and under 25 DCO s.4(2)(b)
- 12-month supervision following release
- Not be made against person previously served sentence of
imprisonment or of detention in TC DCO s.4(3)
- Must obtain suitability report
- May remand defendant for not more than 3 weeks for DCO s.4(4)
obtaining report of suitability DCO s.4(5)

Training Centre (TC) [教導所]

HSKAR v Tsang Chi
- Half-day education and half-day vocational training =>
Wai
rehabilitation and prevention of re-offending
TCO s.4(1)
- Applicable to offence punishable by imprisonment
TCO s.4(2)
- 6 months to 3 years for 14 or above and under 21
- For reformation and prevention of crime
- Must obtain suitability report
TCO s.4(3)

5
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

- May remand defendant for not more than 3 weeks for TCO s.4(4)
obtaining report of suitability

Wong Chun Cheong provided a list of guidelines: Wong Chun Cheong

- Meeting threshold age requirements and that offence is v HKSAR
punishable with imprisonment
- Whether in the interest of community to require
rehabilitative approach
- Offender’s conduct, circumstances of offence
- Reject TC if it is too lenient or if the offence is too minor

Rehabilitation Centre (RC) [更生中心] RCO s.4

- Focuses on reformation of young offenders
- Guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment RCO s.4(2)
- Did not serve sentence of imprisonment/detention in
DC/TC/DATC
- Physically, mentally and medically fit to be in RC
- Short-term custodial sentence is appropriate
- Certified to be not drug dependent at the time of conviction
- Not less than 14 but under 21
- In custody for an aggregate period of 3-9 months: initial RCO s.4(4), (5)
detention period of 2-5 months at a RC of confinement in
which a young offender may be detained in custody, plus
subsequent period of residence for a duration of 1-4 months
at a RC in which a young offender may be required to reside
after studying, working or engaging in other approved
activities
- Subject to 1 year's supervision after release
- May remand defendant for not more than 3 weeks for RCO s.4(3)
obtaining report of suitability

Purpose of RC: SJ v Huang Long

- Deter young offenders from commiting further offences Wei
- Correcting delinquent values/behaviours
- Teaching them to respect the law and develop socially
acceptable behaviour
- Equip them with interpersonal skills
- Prepare them for reintegration

Reformatory school (RS) [感化院]

- No remorse for behaviour; mixing with bad company; no R v So Hoi Ming
insight into his problems; no concrete plans for future
- Offence punishable by imprisonment or fine RSO s.17(1)
- Must consider suitability report fr Director of Social Welfare RSO s.17(2)
- Youthful offender: from 10 years old to under 16 years old RSO s.17(1)
- Not less than 1 year and not more than 3 years, in any case RSO s.17(1)
not longer than until such offender attains the age of 18
- Upon the expiry of the said period of 1 year, the Director of
Social Welfare may discharge him on licence: may be
subject to conditions and revoked at any time

4.4 Suspended sentence

Term of imprisonment need not be served immediately.

6
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

Conditions:
- For a term of less than 2 years CPO s.109B(1)
- Not available for excepted offences in Sch 3 of Cap 221 CPO s.109B(1)
- Unless D commits another offence punishable with CPO s.109B(1)
imprisonment not less than 1 year or more than 3 years after
the order
- Shall not make probation order CPO s.109B(2)
- Court may impose conditions CPO s.109B(3)
o Breach of condition shall be treated as offence CPO s.109F
punishable with imprisonment
- When deciding whether suspended sentence should be order, SJ v Ip Hon Ming
court should take into account of gravity offence and
mitigating factors
- Should have regard to all circumstances of the case SJ v Wade
- Offender may be dealt with in respect of suspended sentence CPO s.109D
by any court

If D commits another offence: CPO s.109C

- Suspended sentence may take effect
o Take effect when another term of imprisonment
passed
- May substitute with greater or lesser term
- Vary the original order by substituting a period
- Make no order

4.5 Community service order (CSO)

The purpose of CSO is to be rehabilitative and reparative.

Conditions:
- Of or over 14 years old CSO s.4(1)
- Punishable with imprisonment CSO s.4(1)
- Total number of hours not exceeding 240 CSO s.4(1)
- May be ordered in addition to or in lieu of any other CSO s.4(2)
sentence (unless the other sentence is mandatory)
- D must consent to CSO CSO s.4(3)(a)
- Must consider report from probation officer CSO s.4(3)(b)(i)

Guidelines:
- 6 factors in R v Brown: first offender/light criminal record; R v Brown
stable home background; good work record; gainful
employment or have realistic prospect of such; genuine
remorse; risk of re-offending is slight
o Whether genuine remorse is a precondition SJ v Leung Hiu Yeung
- Court is not restricted to the 6 factors nor insisting that all HKSAR v Wan Ka
the factors must be present; but usually most of the factors Kit
would be present
- Even if the factors are present, gravity of offence must be SJ v Li Cheuk Ming
considered: e.g. whether general deterrence is needed
o But CSO may still be granted under exceptional
circumstances: guilty plea, general family
background, financial losses are not exceptional
circumstances

7
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

4.6 Probation Order

Conditions:
- Not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law Probation of
- Nature of offence and character of offender Offenders Ordinance
- Under supervision of probation officer for not less than 1 s.3(1)
year or more than 3 years
- May impose additional requirements for securing good POOO s.3(2)
conduct / preventing a repetition
- Breach of PO: fine, continuance of PO, caution or re-
sentence

4.7 Fine

Conditions:
- Any offence other than an offence which the sentence is CPO s.113A
fixed by law
- In lieu of or in addition to any other sentence
- Allow time for payment
- If any sum is not paid, imprisonment not exceeding 12
months
- Must be within the capacity of D to pay HKSAR v Du Jun

For juvenile offenders:

- Parent/guardian to pay for them unless the court is satisfied JOO s.10(1)
that parent/guardian cannot be found or has not conduced to
commission of offence by neglecting to exercise due care.
- May order parent/guardian give security for good behaviour JOO s.10(2)
- No order against parent/guardian unless being given
opportunity to be heard

4.8 Bind over

Offering no evidence on the condition that D agrees to be bound over

to keep the peace by magistrate:
- D does not plead guilty so no formal criminal record
- But:
o D must accept and agree to a set of facts (Brief
Facts/Summary of Facts)
o D must also accept the terms of bind over order of
magistrate
- Purpose is to prevent future breaches of the peace CPO s.109I, MO
- Magistrate has jurisdiction to order the deposit of a specific s.61
amount of money/sureties
- ONE bind over order is only effective when D consents to it HKSAR v Lau Wai
- ONE bind over to keep the peace should be only be ordered Wo
when conduct involves:
o Violence
o Threat to violence
o Conduct giving rise to reasonable apprehension that
violence will take place
- Terms of the bind over terms should be clear

8
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

D would usually undertake not to seek costs from Prosecution.

4.9 Absolute and conditional discharge

Conditional or absolute discharge (only granted by magistrate) R v Chan Kuen

- Convicted on indictment or summary conviction Ming
- Having regard to character, antecedents, age, health or MO s.36, CPO s.107
mental condition, or trivial nature of offence, or the
extenuating circumstances
- It is inexpedient to inflict any punishment
- (if conditional discharge) Recognizance of good behaviour
and to appear for sentence at any time not exceeding 3 yrs

Breach of condition CPO s.108

- May issue warrant for apprehension
- Shall be brought before magistrate
- On bail or on custody
- May convict and sentence for original offence without
further proof of guilt

Especially relevant in civil disobedience cases: HKSAR v Leung Hiu

Yeung (CA held that civil disobedience shall not be used as defence;
court may give more weight to public interest); SJ v Wong Chi Fung

4.1 Other orders

0
Compensation order
- Convicted of an offence CPO s.73(1), MO
- Pay to any aggrieved person for personal injury, loss of or s.98
damage to property, or both injury and loss or damage
- CFI: as it thinks reasonable
- MC: not exceeding $100,000 as reasonable

Notes on compensation order: HKSAR v Chan Nai

- Not an alternative to a sentence Keung
- Should only be made where the legal position is quite clear
- Must have regard to the means of Defendant
- Must be precise; must relate to the offence; must specify the
amount
- Must not be oppressive to D, having in mind D may be very
short of money
- May be good moral ground for the order to remind D of the
evil done
- Must be realistic; avoid instalments over long period

Forfeiture and confiscation orders

Restitution order
Case 1: property in possession of or for D
- Convicted of indictable offence CPO s.84(1)
- Property in his possession/possessed by another for him
- Magistrate or court
- To deliver property to person appearing to be entitled to it
- Can return to person who is charged with indictable offence CPO s.84(2)

9
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

if it is consistent with interests of justice and safe custody

Case 2: property in possession of court, police or customs

- In connection with offence; offence committed in respect of CPO s.102
it; used in the commission of offence
- Whether offence committed in Hong Kong
- Upon own motion/application
- To deliver property to person appearing to be entitled to it;
or sell/retain it if identity unknown; if no value, destroy it

Criminal bankruptcy CPO s.84A

Disqualification
- Disqualification of company directors
- Disqualification from driving RTO s.69
o Convicted of offence listed tin RTO s.69(1)

5. Applying sentencing principles to mitigation

5.1 Sentencing options for particular offence and/or defendant

Generally
- Maximum sentence
- Mandatory sentence
- Whether offence is an excepted offence
- Sentencing guidelines / tariffs
- Young offender
- Disqualification from driving / order to attend and complete
driving improvement course

Mandatory sentence for relevant offence

- Apart from D who is 18 years or older found guilty of OAPO s.2
murder, legislations do not prescribe mandatory sentences
o Notwithstanding mandatory life sentence, judge CPO s.67B
would specify the min. term that must be served, and
factors for reviewing sentence in the future: see
Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board (LTPSB)
- Aims at providing administrative measure to speedily deal HKSAR v Chow
with offenders and obviate need to appear in court Wai-hung

Excepted offences
- Relevant to whether suspended sentence can be granted

Sentencing guidelines and tariffs of offence

- Armed robbery R v Mo Kwong Sang
o Carried knife/dangerous weapon displayed to victim:
5 years
o Invasion of private premises: 6 years
o Physical violence: 7 years
HSKAR v Ngo Van Huy
- Theft by pickpocketing: 12-15 months’ imprisonment

Young offenders

Disqualification from driving

SJ v Lau Siu Kuen

10
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

- Question is how long offender should be kept off the road

5.2 Starting point

Sentencing judge / magistrate should expressly state starting point of HKSAR v Lin Yu
sentence.
- Starting point is sentence before taking into account of
aggravating and mitigating factors
- Convicted of more than one offence: separate starting points

5.3 Mitigating factors

Generally
- Where factors are plausible and uncontradicted, judge should HKSAR v Cheung
proceed to sentence on that basis of mitigation To Ming
- Take into account of the crime and personal circumstances HKSAR v Bayanmunkh
- Possible factors not discussed in detail here:
o Age, health, financial circumstances, positive good
character, voluntary repayment, loss of pension

Guilty plea – subject to overriding discretion of judge/magistrate HKSAR v Ngo Van

- CFI Nam
Situation Discount
Plead guilty at MC when 1/3 discount
opportunity given
Indicate to Court / 25% discount
Prosecution after committal
but up to and until dates are
fixed for trial
After trial date fixed but 20-25% discount
before first day of trial
On first day of trial 20% discount
After arraignment and Less than 20% discount
during trial
- DC
Situation Discount
Indicate to plead guilty on 1/3 discount
Plea Day
After fixing trial date but 20-25% discount
before first day of trial
First day of trial 20% discount
During the trial Less than 20% discount
- MC
Situation Discount
Pleads guilty when asked to 1/3 discount
tender a plea
After fixing trial date but 20-25% discount
before first day of trial
First day of trial 20% discount
During the trial Less than 20% discount

Clear record
- Absence of previous convictions R v Chan Ka-choi

11
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

- Depending on the gravity of offence, if called for a deterrent HKSAR v Law

sentence, clear record would not be a factor for discount Num-chun

Assistance to authorities
- No distinction between information of crime for which D Z v HKSAR
was sentenced or other crime
- No distinction between pre-arrest/post-arrest assistance
- Regard to nature and extent of assistance
- Regard to likely consequences of D
- Relevant circumstances:
o Good and genuine motive – full recognition
o Paid by police – more substantial, less sympathetic
o Build up credit – undesirable
Situation Discount
Provided assistance + 1/3 40% discount
reduction from guilty plea
Truthful and material 50% discount
evidence + 1/3 reduction
from guilty plea
Supergrass co-operation 2/3 discount

Delay in prosecution
- Not of itself a mitigating factor HKSAR v Chiu Chi
- Not ordinarily a mitigating factor if caused by: Wing
o Difficulties in detecting, investing and proving
offence and delay is reasonable
o Offender’s obstruction (but not reliance on D’s legal
rights)
o Normal operation of criminal justice system
- Conducive to emergence of mitigating factors, e.g. made
progress towards rehabilitation
- May be a mitigating factor when:
o Caused significant stress / D in uncertain suspense
o Reasonable expectation that D wouldn’t be charged
and order affairs on faith of that expectation
- May be a mitigating factor when caused by dilatory /
neglectful conduct by the government

5.4 Aggravating factors

This is case-specific. HKSAR v Minney

Must look at the full and overall culpability of the offender.

5.5 Enhancement of sentence

DC / CFI may have power to enhance sentence under specific HSKAR v Li Kin
legislation, to order a sentence of greater deterrence; this should be Keung
used sparingly and under exceptional circumstances.

E.g. Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance s.27 OSCO s.27

- Organised crime or
- Information on nature and extent of harm and benefit;
prevalence of crime admitted to the court

12
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

- But should not exceed maximum penalty permitted by law

5.6 Other reports of defendant

Court may adjourn the case to a specific date for the reports.
- Background report, probation report, community service
report, DATC report, medical report

Background report, probation report and community service report

are prepared by Social Welfare Department.
- Interview D, and maybe family, employers, teachers, etc.

Where medical reports and suitability reports are orders, D must be

remanded in custody not exceeding 3 weeks.

Background report
- Further background: e.g. history and personal circumstances;
attitude of D; whether D was remorseful
- May be called for minor or serious offences HKSAR v Law Ka
Kit
Some offences mandate the court to obtain relevant reports prior to
sentencing.

Suitability report
- For Defendants under 25 years old
- Suitability for admission into DC, TC, RC, RS

5.7 Totality principle and concurrent/consecutive sentences

The purpose is to achieve a just and balance sentence that will not HKSAR v Lam See
punish D twice and will not be crushing to him; and achieving the Chung, Stephen
usual principles of sentencing: deterrence, rehabilitation and
denunciation.

Guidance given in HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching HKSAR v Ngai Yiu

- Initial step to identify sentence for each offence and final Ching
step to achieve a total sentence appropriate to overall and
true culpability of the offender
- Ultimate goal/issue: whether sentence for one offence
comprehend and reflect criminality for other offence?
- ‘One transaction rule’ is only a rule of thumb
o One transaction/course: then concurrent sentences
- If second offence adds culpability to the first, then sentences
should be wholly or partially consecutive to first
o Still have to consider overall culpability

Aggregate of separate sentences for each count may exceed

maximum sentencing jurisdiction, but final sentence, taking into
account of the totality principle, shall not.

5.8 Judge’s duty to give reasons

In DC, verdict and reasons are given orally, in the presence of D and DCO s.80

13
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

any written reasons provided at the same time.

Amount of reasons depends on all the circumstances. HKSAR v Okafor

6. Rehabilitation of offenders
6.1 Starting point
Conviction of an offence Rehabilitation of
- Convicted in HK Offenders Ordinance
- Sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding 3 months or fine s.2(1)
exceeding $10,000
o Does not include detention in RS/DC/TC/DATC
o Whether suspended or not
- Not convicted in HK on any earlier day of offence
- 3 years elapsed without being convicted again
o From the date of sentencing
- => no evidence shall be admissible to show conviction
- => no need to refer to conviction
- => not lawful to prejudice individual based on conviction

Individual ordered to pay fixed penalty ROO s.2(1B)

- => no conviction for question and obligation to disclose
- => not lawful to prejudice individual based on conviction

For treatment for conviction related to unlawful society: s.2(1A).

Exceptions relating to proceedings

General ROO s.3
- Recovery of fine, breach of condition imposed following
conviction
- Proceedings related to interests of infants, foster parent
application; where there was express consent; where justice
cannot be done except admission
- For sentencing in subsequent offences
- For admission of evidence for a further offence

Further specific exceptions related to proceedings with professionals ROO s.4(1)

- Disciplinary hearing of Barrister, solicitor or account
- Prescribed office
- Application of licence, permit, dispensation, registration
- Insurance-related: suitability as insurer, as director/controller
of insurer, suitability as broker, and appointment, registration
of insurance agent
- MPF-related: suitability as approved trustee/controller
- Bank-related: suitability to be controller/director/CE of AI;
prohibition of personnel from being employees of AI

Further specific exceptions related to disclosure of information for ROO s.4(2)

professionals + foster parent
- Admissions as barrister, solicitor or account
- Appointment of prescribed office
- Authorised as insurer, as director/controller of insurer,
suitability as broker, and appointment, registration of
insurance agent

14
LLAW3099 Criminal Procedure Christopher Chan

- MPF-related: suitability as approved trustee/controller

- To be controller/director/CE of AI; employees of AI
- Appointment as foster parent

ROO s.4(3)
Further specific exceptions related to employment
- Dismissal / exclusion from practising as barrister, solicitor,
account or from prescribed office

Further exceptions related to vocational driving (fixed penalty) ROO s.4(4)

- Suitability for employment as vocational driver ROO s.4(5)
- Dismissal or exclusion from being vocational driver ROO s.4(6)
- For insurer to assess risk in respect of vehicle insurance

15