Law: Should juveniles be tried as adults in Hong Kong?

By Raymond Fung

In contemporary Hong Kong society, a pressing debate has emerged over whether the criminal justice system should apply its full rigour to juvenile offenders. Because children and youths are protected by specific statutory frameworks, they frequently receive significant sentencing discounts, community service orders, or, depending on their age, avoid detention and community service altogether. Under Section 3 of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 226), “It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of 10 years can be guilty of an offence.” While this absolute defense of doli incapax protects children under ten, Hong Kong’s domestic juvenile offense rate—though historically lower than other global metropolitan areas—has seen a worrying upward trend, driven largely by a rise in narcotics and drug trafficking cases involving students aged 14 to 16.

Currently, certain policymakers and criminologists argue that juveniles must be held strictly accountable for their actions without exception. Proponents of this view point to a rise in violent offenses perpetrated by teenagers, echoing the grievances of victims' families who advocate for equal application of the law regardless of age. This perspective is mirrored in the seminal case HKSAR v. Hui Chi Wai and Others, where thirteen juveniles aged 14 to 17 subjected another child to a prolonged, fatal assault lasting several hours. All thirteen defendants were convicted of murder. On appeal, six of the defendants challenged their convictions and sentences, including four who had received mandatory life sentences without a specified minimum term. They argued that their youth had been insufficiently weighed during sentencing, and contended that the trial judges (Hon. Stuart-Moore VP, Mayo VP, and Stock JA) were legally required to set a minimum term under local law. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, inferring that youth is not an automatic ground for reduced criminal liability, confirming that homicidal intent can be formed irrespective of age, and upholding the murder convictions.

Conversely, other legal scholars and developmental psychologists argue that because the adolescent brain is not fully developed, youths lack the cognitive maturity to fully gauge the morality or long-term consequences of their actions. For instance, in Secretary for Justice v. CMT, two 14-year-old defendants were initially charged with unlawful assembly. Acknowledging their status as juveniles under Section 2 of Cap. 226 (which defines a juvenile as a person between the ages of 10 and 16), the trial court initially granted them Care and Protection Orders. Dissatisfied with the perceived leniency of the ruling, the Secretary for Justice filed a sentencing review. The Court of Appeal subsequently substituted the original orders with harsher penalties, sentencing the respondents to 12 months’ probation and 80 hours of community service, respectively.

The contrast between Hui and CMT demonstrates that Hong Kong courts balance a defendant's youth, mitigating factors, and capacity for post-sentence rehabilitation against the gravity of the crime. In Hui, partial leniency was denied due to the sheer gravity of the offense and the clear malice aforethought of the defendants. In contrast, Secretary for Justice v. CMT yielded greater judicial mercy because the underlying offense was less severe, confirming that courts will adjust sentences to accommodate a defendant's juvenile status when appropriate.

Nevertheless, the overall rise in juvenile crime over the past few years has intensified calls to reform the age thresholds embedded within the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance. According to the Hong Kong Police Force's Law and Order Situation report, approximately 4,140 youth arrests were recorded, with young juveniles accounting for 64.3% (2,662) of this youth demographic. This means that roughly 6 to 7 out of every 10 young people arrested in Hong Kong fall into the strictly protected juvenile category.

To summarize, a growing segment of public opinion maintains that minors who commit acute offenses should face the same legal consequences as adults. However, because the vast majority of these offenders are concentrated between the ages of 14 and 16, lingering doubts remain as to whether they fully comprehend the gravity of their actions. Many of these teenagers originate from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or broken homes, frequently offending to financially assist their families. Consequently, a nuanced approach may be required: juveniles should face adult-equivalent accountability for severe offenses such as murder, manslaughter, or drug trafficking, while less critical crimes, such as petty theft or common assault, should continue to warrant sentencing discounts in light of their developmental immaturity.

Bibliography

CRIN. “HKSAR v. Hui Chi Wai and Others – CRIN Legal.” Crin.org, 20 July 2001, legallibrary.crin.org/hksar-v-hui-chi-wai-and-others/. Accessed 21 Apr. 2026.

Denis Chang Chambers. “Criminal Law — Court of Appeal Clarifies Principles on Care and Protection Orders in Sentencing Juvenile Offenders – Denis Chang’s Chambers – Hong Kong Barristers.” Dcc.law, 2020, dcc.law/case_commentary/criminal-law-court-of-appeal-clarifies-principles-on-care-and-protection-orders-in-sentencing-juvenile-offenders/. Accessed 21 Apr. 2026.

“Hong Kong E-Legislation.” Www.elegislation.gov.hk, 1 July 2022, www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap226.

Hong Kong Police Force. “Press Conference on Hong Kong Crime Situation of Year 2018 | Hong Kong Police Force.” Police.gov.hk, 2018, www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/01_about_us/cp_ye.html.

“Legal Proceedings against a Child.” Family CLIC, 25 June 2021, familyclic.hk/en/topics/child-and-youth-affairs/childrens-protection-and-welfare/legal-proceedings-against-a-child/.