16 Nov 2011
The appropriate starting point was reduced from the judge's 6 years to 5 years 3 months given the totality and aggravating features; the customary one-third discount for a timely guilty plea applies (cooperation subsumed), resulting in a final sentence of 3 years 6 months, so the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence accordingly.
9 Jul 1999
The Court held the trial judge did not err in principle or act unreasonably: the 24 year starting point was within range given precedents and the totality of offences (including large cannabis quantity), the reductions for early guilty plea and relative youth were appropriately applied, and the applicant's cooperation did not amount to assistance warranting further reduction; application dismissed.
9 Dec 1997
The sentencing judge acted within proper discretion: starting point of 8 years was appropriate; the applicant was given a one‑third plea discount and two months' credit for custody in China; no further discounts were warranted; the appeal is dismissed and the sentence of 5 years 2 months imprisonment is upheld.
19 Jun 1997
The Court held the sentence was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive given the systematic nature of the offending, the significant total amount taken and the mitigating discounts applied for plea and cooperation; reliance on R v. Chan Sui-to did not render the sentence inappropriate and concurrent terms with an order to repay HK$40,000 were justified.
17 Oct 1996
The sentence of three years and three months was appropriate and not manifestly excessive because the appellant, a skilled professional, materially concealed the identity of substantial commercial vehicles; his family circumstances and limited cooperation did not amount to sufficient mitigation.
21 Aug 1996
The sentencing Judge acted within her discretion in selecting a starting point of six and a half years and reducing it to four years and four months for cooperation and plea; the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
25 Jul 1996
The sentences were not manifestly excessive; the trial judge acted within discretion in assessing seriousness, criminal record and mitigation, and in ordering concurrency/consecutivity; the applicant's cooperation was limited and did not justify reducing the custodial term, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
12 Jun 1995
The Court held the appropriate starting point for sentencing A1 for conspiracy involving a firearm was 13 years (not 16); A1 was the most culpable figure despite not participating in field operations; cooperation lacking concrete results attracts little mitigation; sentences varied accordingly to 13 years for A1 and 10 years for A2.
10 Oct 1986
The Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the appellant's cooperation and plea; balancing the mitigation against the serious facts (presence at manufacture and possession of keys) the appropriate sentence is 10 years, reduced from 12 years.
15 Nov 1985
The appeal succeeds because the trial judge did not give sufficient credit for the applicant's guilty plea and cooperation; therefore the Court quashed the original sentences and substituted five years for conspiracy and eight years for robbery, to run concurrently.