HKSAR v. Cheung Ho Yeung

On 3 September 2026, the Court of Appeal (Poon CJHC and Pang JA) handed down judgment in HKSAR v CHEUNG HO YEUNG [2026] HKCA 1755, allowing the applicant's appeal against sentence and reducing his term from 6 years to 5 years 4 months. Ms Virginia Lau, instructed by Chiu, Szeto & Cheng and assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, acted for the applicant.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Court of First Instance (HCCC 127/2023) to conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or property, contrary to section 54(a) of the Crimes Ordinance. The alternative count was conspiracy to commit terrorist activities under Article 24 of the National Security Law. Alex Lee J sentenced him to 6 years' imprisonment, adopting 8 years as the starting point and granting a 25% discount for his plea after committal but before listing (§1, §6).

The conspiracy targeted the Tuen Mun and Kwun Tong Law Courts Buildings using TATP explosives. The applicant, then aged 20 and a university student with no prior convictions, played a significant role: he provided HKD 40,000 in cash to A3 (the mastermind), sent A3 information on how to manufacture TATP, and agreed to recruit at least 10 lookouts for the day of execution (§2). The Judge found his involvement "not only persistent but also deep and well-thought through" and described the conspiracy as "evil" (§5). No discount was given for the applicant's provision of a witness statement to the prosecution, because he had previously downplayed his role and misled the prosecution (§6).

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge's conclusion was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. However, the court agreed with the applicant that a further discount was warranted based on matters disclosed in the case papers. The respondent did not argue otherwise (§7).

The result: leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced by 8 months to 5 years 4 months (§8).

For practitioners: where a sentencing judge has correctly identified the starting point and the principal discounts, but has overlooked a further mitigating factor disclosed in the case papers, an appellant can still obtain a reduction on appeal even where the respondent does not contest it. The court will intervene on the discount component without disturbing the underlying analysis of culpability.