30 Aug 2018
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds: the starting point adopted by the sentencing judge was within a proper range and lenient; apparent disparity with another case was explained by differing factual discounts; and family circumstances do not mitigate serious trafficking offences.
18 Feb 2004
Leave to appeal refused because it was not reasonably arguable that there was any glaring disparity in culpability between the applicant and his co-accused such as would justify intervention in the sentence; equal sentences are not objectionable absent a glaring disparity.
3 Aug 2001
The two-month immediate custodial sentence (reduced from a three-month starting point by one-third for a guilty plea) was within sentencing discretion and not manifestly excessive given the commercial nature of the trafficking in a discotheque frequented by young people, the appellant's prior convictions, and established sentencing tariffs (adjusted for herbal cannabis) articulated in Tuen Shui Ming.
30 Apr 1997
The sentence of four years imprisonment was within the sentencing judge's powers, was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, and the judge's distinctions between the defendants based on age, relative involvement and mitigating circumstances justified the disparity; leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
31 Oct 1984
The Court held that while the original sentence was not wrong in principle, the sentencing disparity between the applicant and his co-defendant was unjustified and required correction; accordingly the applicant's sentence was reduced from eight to six years to reflect comparable recognition of his cooperation.