HKSAR v. Sahil Kumar and Another

Read the full judgment text of CACC 173/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 May 2022.

1. I have read the respective written submissions of counsel for the two applicants and the respondent and indicated to Ms Mok for the respondent that she may advance further oral argument if she wishes at this stage. In my view it is reasonably arguable that the starting points adopted in respect of each applicant and the eventual notional sentences after trial (with enhancements) are manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle. In those circumstances, I shall grant leave to appeal on Ground

Cites 1 case

Case No.CACC 173/2021[2022] HKCA 716
Court
Court of Appeal
Date17 May 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC 173 /2021

[2022] HKCA 716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 173 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 151 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN    
  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  SAHIL Kumar (D1) 1st Applicant
  SANJEEV Kumar (D2) 2nd Applicant

________________________

Before:  Hon Macrae VP in Court

Date of Hearing:  17 May 2022

Date of Judgment:  17 May 2022

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

1.I have read the respective written submissions of counsel for the two applicants and the respondent and indicated to Ms Mok for the respondent that she may advance further oral argument if she wishes at this stage. In my view it is reasonably arguable that the starting points adopted in respect of each applicant and the eventual notional sentences after trial (with enhancements) are manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle. In those circumstances, I shall grant leave to appeal on Ground 1 of the 1st applicant’s perfected grounds of appeal against sentence, and Grounds 1 and 2 of the 2nd applicant’s perfected grounds of appeal against sentence.

2.Having granted leave to appeal on Ground 1 of the 1st applicant’s perfected grounds of appeal, I consider I should also grant leave to appeal on Ground 2 of his respective grounds. I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to say anything further as to the merits of the proposed appeals.

  (Andrew Macrae)
Vice President

Ms Winnie Mok SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr H Y Wong, instructed by Boase, Cohen & Collins, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Applicant

Mr John Marray, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the 2nd Applicant

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACC 173/2021