8 Mar 2011
The magistrate's sentencing was within established sentencing practice for the offences, there were no mitigating features or strong humanitarian grounds to reduce the sentences, and the arrangement of concurrent and consecutive terms to produce a 22 month effective term was proper; appeals dismissed.
12 Jul 2002
The Court found counsel had properly advised the defendant and the defendant elected not to testify; the defendant's proposed evidence would not have altered the outcome given the prosecution identification and surrounding circumstances, so the conviction was not unsafe; accordingly the renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the Court ordered exclusion of two months' custody time under s83W as a deterrent to unmeritorious appeals.
5 Nov 2001
Convictions were upheld as the trial judge’s inferences were reasonable; the additional two‑month reduction based on defendants being Mainland Chinese was wrong in principle and is set aside because foreignness or Mainland origin does not automatically justify a specific discount; sentences imposed (including consecutive immigration sentences) are not manifestly excessive and are restored to higher terms.
5 Nov 2001
The Court upheld the burglary conviction as reasonably inferred from circumstantial evidence; held that cultural or language difference and Mainland origin do not automatically justify a specific additional discount and that the trial judge erred in granting a 2-month additional reduction on that ground; the Court set aside the 2-month reductions and confirmed the sentences as adjusted to reflect totality.
8 Oct 1999
The Court refused to interfere because the sentencing judge applied correct starting points and discounts, properly considered mitigation (including medical condition and personal background), and the applicant's new allegations were inconsistent with facts admitted below and did not vitiate the plea or justify reducing the sentence.
11 Aug 1999
The sentencing judge correctly applied the applicable tariffs and mitigation for plea, properly imposed a consecutive tariff sentence for the immigration offence, and the appellant's personal and humanitarian circumstances were not of sufficient weight to justify departing from the guideline; therefore there is no basis to grant leave to appeal and the sentences stand.
3 Aug 1999
The trial judge's rejection of the applicant's account and acceptance of the palm print evidence were reasonable and did not render the conviction unsafe; the sentences for distinct offences were properly ordered consecutively and, applying relevant sentencing principles including R v So Man King, the total term of 4 years 6 months was not manifestly excessive and should be affirmed.
2 Feb 1996
The court held that the judge's starting point of seven years for the robbery, discount to five years for mitigation including guilty plea, and the consecutive 15 month term for remaining produced an aggregate sentence of six years and three months which was within the appropriate range; therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
14 Feb 1992
The sentencing judge erred in ordering consecutive terms; given the circumstances (including the likelihood of deportation) it was unjust to run the terms consecutively. The proper disposition was to make the sentences concurrent and to reduce the total term to 15 months, with the term to run from 15 September to ensure the offender does not lose remission.