Case Details

Citation

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER, FAMV 27/2008

Case Number

FAMV 27/2008

Court

Court of Final Appeal

(CFA)

Decision Date

11 September 2008

Parties

Applicant(s):

TONG YU LAM

Respondent(s):

THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

For Applicant(s):

Mr Paul Harris SC (instructed by Messrs Brian Kong & Co and assigned by the Legal Aid Department)

For Respondent(s):

Mr Russell Coleman SC (instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons)

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER

FAMV 27/2008

Court of Final Appeal11 September 2008

FAMV000027/2008 TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER

FAMV No. 27 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 27 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 203 OF 2006)

_____________________

Between:

	TONG YU LAM	Applicant
	- and -
	THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD	1st Respondent
	SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE	2nd Respondent

_____________________

Date of Hearing:	11 September 2008
Date of Determination:	11 September 2008

_____________________

DETERMINATION

_____________________

Chief Justice Li:

1. In Lau Cheong v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 415, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of mandatory life sentences imposed on adults convicted of murder on the grounds stated in that judgment. As was correctly decided at first instance (Hartmann and Chung JJ) and in the Court of Appeal (Ma CJHC, Stock JA and Suffiad J) below, the sentence which was upheld is the sentence as traditionally imposed, that is, an indefinite sentence of imprisonment for life subject to regular statutory reviews by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board and to possible release by executive decision. There is no scope for now contending that such a mandatory life sentence can only be valid if a minimum term is fixed by a judge as the punitive part of the sentence.

2. Nor is Mr Harris SC’s fallback argument that the Board should set a minimum term or give a broad indication of it viable.

3. The application for leave to appeal must therefore be dismissed.

(Andrew Li)
Chief Justice

(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge

(R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

Mr Paul Harris SC (instructed by Messrs Brian Kong & Co and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant

Mr Russell Coleman SC (instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons) for the respondents

Appeal Committee:

Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ andMr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations

Appeal history

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD
CFI · 16 Feb 2006
On appeal from
TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD
CA · 22 Jun 2007
On appeal from
TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
CA · 7 Jan 2008
On appeal from
TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
CA · 14 May 2008
On appeal from
TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
CA · 4 Sept 2008
On appeal from
TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
CFA · 11 Sept 2008
This judgment