22 Jan 2020
Leave to appeal against sentence is refused because the Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge's selection of starting points and application of discounts for timely pleas and assistance were appropriate given the serious, well‑planned conspiracy involving weapons and recruitment from the Mainland; the applicants failed to show any arguable case that the sentences were manifestly excessive.
22 Jun 2018
The judge acted within lawful sentencing principles: the 15-year starting point for 397 grams of cocaine narcotic was within guideline ranges, the applicant received the full one-third guilty plea discount, no additional credit was due for cooperation that produced no meaningful result, and a 1-year enhancement for committing the offence while a Form 8 recognizance holder was appropriate and not appealably erroneous given appellate authority; accordingly the sentence of 10 years 8 months was upheld.
2 May 2013
The Court found a global starting point of nine years appropriate for the six robberies, accepted the applicant was entitled to a total discount of 40% (including one-third for guilty plea and credit for assistance and voluntary admissions), reduced the sentence from six years to five years five months to run concurrently, and granted leave to appeal out of time given the delay and prospects of success.
4 Jan 2002
The Court held that youth alone did not justify exceptional mitigation given active and central roles in trafficking; D1 deserved greater credit for assistance and guilty plea, resulting in reduction to 10 years 9 months; D2's aggregate sentence breached the totality principle and was reduced by directing concurrent sentences to yield a total of 10 years.
7 Nov 2000
The Court held that reducing the guilty-plea discount because the appellant gave evidence for a co-defendant which was disbelieved was wrong in principle; absent special reasons the one-third discount should be applied. The starting point of 27 years was not manifestly excessive given the large quantities of drugs. No additional discount for assistance was warranted. The sentence was adjusted accordingly to 18 years imprisonment.
27 Jun 1997
The assistance provided by the applicant was limited to information of the kind contained in a cautioned statement and did not constitute separate substantial cooperation; therefore no additional discount beyond the usual guilty plea reduction was warranted and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused because the sentence was not excessive given the gravity of the offences.
24 Sept 1996
The Court held that the sentencing starting point for trafficking 1,518 grams of heroin (21 years) was not flawed though arguably low, and that the trial judge's application of discounts for guilty plea, assistance to police and good character were appropriate and sufficiently generous; therefore the appeals were dismissed.
3 Apr 1996
The trial judge's allowance of a 25% discount for guilty plea and assistance was insufficient for a second-tier Lau Tak-ming trafficking case; a 33% discount was appropriate, warranting reduction of the sentence from four-and-a-half years to four years imprisonment.
16 Feb 1996
Given the admitted facts that the applicants were illegal entrants armed with an effective firearm, a knife and restraints and intended to commit robbery, the appropriate starting point was 13 years; a 4-year discount for a plea of guilty was appropriate and additional discount for assistance justified a greater reduction for the second applicant, producing final sentences of 9 years and 8 years respectively.
23 Jan 1996
The Court reduced the appropriate starting point from 30 years to 24 years, allowed a one‑third reduction for early guilty pleas and awarded additional modest credit for assistance to police, concluding the total sentence should be 15 years; the 20‑year sentence was quashed and substituted with 15 years imprisonment.