30 Dec 2005
The court held that given the use of knives and the tying/gagging of the victim the seven year starting point was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant, as part of the joint enterprise and having provided the getaway vehicle and instruments, was equally liable; the individual sentences and their concurrent operation producing a total of six years six months were appropriate.
10 Aug 1989
A chopper did not fall within s27(1) as an article for use in connection with burglary, theft or cheat and therefore the defendant was not guilty of going equipped; moreover, the Crown was entitled to call rebuttal evidence once the receipts were produced in the defence case because receipts were not before the court until produced and became a matter in issue at that time, permitting rebuttal evidence notwithstanding the prosecution's prior knowledge that such receipts might be relied on.
23 Sept 1980
The magistrate erred by effectively sentencing the appellant on his past record rather than the offence as charged; joyriding, while falling within 'stealing', is generally less serious and the appropriate sentence was substantially lower, warranting reduction of the sentence to four months while leaving the activation of the suspended sentence undisturbed.
25 Apr 1973
Because the Crown conceded that the prior decision in NG Chun-ting is binding, the court was obliged to reduce the nine month sentence for going equipped to three months; no further order was sought or made by the appellant and the appeal was allowed accordingly.
4 May 1972
Because the screwdriver was possessed solely to facilitate the intent to steal, the two convictions arose from the same criminal intent and operative act; therefore there was no justification for consecutive sentences and the proper order is that the sentences run concurrently.