3 Feb 2023
Although the magistrate was mistaken in believing the earlier training‑centre order would run concurrently, re‑sentencing establishes that a training‑centre order remains the appropriate and not excessive sentence for this 16‑year‑old given his record and rehabilitative needs; appeal against sentence is dismissed.
12 May 2017
The Court held that despite defective drafting of counts 2–6 (lack of particularity linking each phone to a specific count), the totality of admissible evidence — applicant and co‑defendant observed engaged in pickpocketing, five non‑new phones without SIMs found in applicant's backpack at the time of arrest, two phones matched owners who lost them nearby hours earlier — permitted the only safe inference that the five phones were stolen and in the applicant's possession as part of the thefts; however, fairness required amendment of the particulars under s23(1) to identify each phone with each…
18 Apr 2017
The trial judge reasonably rejected the appellant's explanation and inferred dishonest intent from his conduct (payment to unlock, failure to report, failure to inquire or provide owner contact); those findings were not unreasonable or impossible and thus the conviction for handling stolen property is upheld.
3 Dec 2008
The conviction for robbery was quashed because the judge's reliance on the 2nd defendant's evidence was unsafe: the accomplice's account was inherently improbable on the timeline and geography, the judge failed to assess the accomplice's propensity and credibility properly, and alternative explanations for the 1st defendant's possession were not adequately considered; substitution of an alternative verdict for handling was not made because the trial judge did not make findings (or clear implications) as to the appellant's knowledge that the pendant was stolen independent of the flawed accompl…
8 Sept 2006
The Court allowed the appeals because the trial judge erred in treating the defence radar expert evidence as having no value and the late disclosure of the police radar plot (and the absence of earlier records due to police retention policy) left open a real and material inference that the sampans were on a return course from Dangan; accordingly the convictions on the conspiracy charge were unsafe and were quashed. In light of that, the Court reduced the sentences for assisting unauthorised entry (D2 and D7) to terms enabling immediate release subject to detention pending repatriation.
6 Feb 2003
The Court held there was no sound reason to reduce the normal one‑third discount merely because the guilty plea was tendered on the first day of trial; accordingly the reduced 25% discount was insufficient and the sentences were set aside and substituted to reflect the appropriate discount and proper application of totality.
11 Dec 2002
The trial judge gave adequate reasons for rejecting the applicant's account and his credibility findings were not shown to be unsustainable; the sentence was within proper principles and distinctions between D1 and D2 were justified; because the renewed leave applications were without merit and the applicant had been warned, the court ordered two months of time spent pending appeal not to count under section 83W CPO.
14 Jun 2000
Judge Wright lawfully set a starting point consistent with contemporaneous tariff (citing AG v Chan Sik-ming), discounted it by 20% for a guilty plea delayed by the applicant's three-year absconding, and correctly applied sentencing principles; disparity with sentences imposed by another judge did not show an error of principle, so the four-year sentence was appropriate and must be upheld.
25 Feb 1998
D3's conviction was quashed because the trial judge's persistent and at times hostile interventions during examination-in-chief constituted a material irregularity amounting to denial of a fair trial such that the verdict was unsafe; no retrial was sought so D3 was discharged. Sentencing appeals: D1's sentence and starting point were not upset; D2's sentence was reduced to nine months because his culpability was overstated by the trial judge and a lower starting point was appropriate.
14 Jan 1998
The Court held that, on the facts and sentencing choices made (starting points, plea discounts and application of totality), the aggregate 40‑month sentence was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and the application to vary was dismissed.