6 Jul 2012
Leave to appeal denied because the trial judge and Court of Appeal were entitled to find the telephone threats were serious; D3's evidence was admissible under the co-conspirator's rule and was supported by independent evidence linking the applicant; the applicant was sufficiently on notice and chose not to testify; no substantial and grave injustice established.
19 Jun 2012
The Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence: the summing-up and trial conduct were fair, no prejudicial publicity was demonstrated, the 10-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the gravity, planning and parasitic exploitation of prior kidnapping trauma, and no specific quantified discount for expeditious trial conduct was warranted beyond modest recognition by the trial judge.
13 Jul 2007
The appellate court held the trial judge properly assessed the minor discrepancies as immaterial, his credibility findings were entitled to deference, there was no lurking doubt to render the conviction unsafe, and it was appropriate to exercise the statutory power under section 83W Cap.221 to direct that three months of pre-appeal custody not be counted towards D1's three-year sentence given the appeal lacked merit.
22 Nov 2004
The magistrate had ample credible evidence and committed no legal or factual error in convicting and sentencing the appellants; the preferral of the amended charge did not amount to double jeopardy; the sentences were not manifestly excessive; and the 1st Appellant's voluntary abandonment of his appeal could not be treated as a nullity.
16 Sept 1998
Given the applicant's prior conviction, failure to comply with a community service order, involvement with triad associates, youth and lack of remorse, the revocation of the community service order and the imposition of a training centre sentence were not excessive and were appropriate for rehabilitation and discipline.
22 Sept 1995
Although the starting point of six years was at the top of the range, the conduct's seriousness given the substantial sum demanded and the commercial context justified that starting point; generous discounts for plea and cooperation were applied and, on balance, the sentence of four years and three months was not vitiated and should be upheld.
23 Dec 1994
The Court found there was ample admissible evidence (witness testimony, surveillance, audio recording and a cautioned statement) supporting the conviction and that the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were not shown to be flawed; accordingly the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application for extension of time to appeal the sentence was refused.
9 Nov 1982
The convictions were quashed because the evidence did not establish, to the required standard, that the complainant was detained against his will by the defendants or that the defendants intended to restrain him; the alleged threats or pressure were not sufficiently proven and opportunities to escape were not reconciled, rendering the convictions unsafe.