20 Jan 2026
Given the objective evidence of planning, disguise, coordination with an accomplice, the high value of goods stolen and the use of an imitation firearm that created real risk, a 14‑year starting point was justified and, after a 25% late plea discount, the resulting sentence of 10 years 6 months was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.
19 Apr 2010
The Court held that although the offence was very serious and involved an imitation firearm, the 18-year starting point was manifestly excessive in the circumstances; a 15-year starting point was appropriate, and applying a 25% discount for the guilty plea (reduced because of an adverse Newton inquiry) produced a sentence of 11 years and 3 months imprisonment, which the Court substituted for the original sentence.
3 Jul 2008
The Recorder did not err: the two robberies were separate deliberate ventures despite temporal proximity, the starting point of 10 years for each count was appropriate in light of the use and pointing of an imitation firearm and relevant authorities, remorse and plea were recognised as mitigation, and the partial consecutive order (3 years consecutive) achieved appropriate totality; appeal dismissed.
5 Dec 2007
The production and pointing of an imitation firearm to threaten during the theft rendered the conduct extremely serious; given the circumstances and the applicant's record, a six-year sentence (with a nine-year starting point) for the s17(2) offence was not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
22 Jun 2005
The court concluded the renewal of the application for leave to appeal against sentence had no merit because the admitted facts established intent, the sentencing starting points and one-third guilty plea discount were appropriate, and therefore refused renewal and ordered under s83W CPO that one month of time served shall not count against the sentence.
13 May 2005
The court held the sentence was not manifestly excessive: the sentencing judge reasonably adopted a 12‑year starting point for a planned, violent robbery involving an imitation firearm and fake bomb against numerous vulnerable victims, correctly reduced it for the guilty plea, and was entitled to order the 8‑year term to run consecutively to the 18‑month sentence for separate identity card offences.
30 Apr 2002
The court dismissed leave to appeal against conviction because the plea was voluntary, unequivocal and supported by evidence and medical reports; it dismissed the sentence appeal because the sentencing starting point and reductions were within acceptable bounds given the repeated use of weapons, the imitation firearm formed part of the robbery, the applicant's serious history and immediate reoffending justified the sentence and consecutive order, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.
17 Nov 2000
The Court allowed the prosecution's review: the original sentences were manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle given the gravity of an armed robbery using an imitation firearm in a jewellery and money-exchange shop; youth and unproved or insubstantial cooperation did not provide sufficient mitigation to negate substantial prison terms; a starting point of twelve years was appropriate in all cases and after reductions for plea and other considerations the Court substituted custodial terms of 7.5 years for D1 and 6.5 years each for D2 and D3.
7 Jan 1998
The prosecution's severance of the imitation firearm offence to the Magistrates' Court was unjustified because the offences were inextricably linked; the sentencing judge properly adjusted sentence to reflect the magistrates' sentences and followed Mo Kwong-sang, and therefore the application to reduce sentence was dismissed.
25 Sept 1996
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were properly open on the evidence, there was no demonstrable prejudice arising from the timing or conduct of legal aid representation or from the non-production of written police statements, and the absence/identity of defence witnesses did not render the trial unsafe; accordingly there was no basis for appellate interference with the conviction.