11 Sept 2008
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed: mandatory life sentences as traditionally imposed are constitutionally valid and there is no requirement that a minimum term be fixed by a judge nor that the Review Board set or indicate a minimum term.
14 Aug 2003
The court held that an indeterminate sentence without a minimum term does not, by itself, constitute cruel, inhuman, degrading or arbitrary treatment contrary to art.3 of the Bill of Rights or art.28 of the Basic Law; the statutory Review Board and impending legislation provide lawful mechanisms to address uncertainty; habeas corpus cannot be extended to require the court to assess or impose a minimum term or to convert complaints about conditions of lawful detention into grounds for immediate release. Accordingly the habeas corpus application was refused.
9 Sept 2002
The court held that determining minimum terms for indeterminate juvenile sentences is, in substance, a judicial function because it materially determines the severity of punishment; s.67C(2),(4) and (6) unlawfully vested that function in the Chief Executive and is inconsistent with Basic Law Art.80 and therefore invalid. Declarations that s.67C contravened ICCPR Art.14(1)/BOR Art.10 and Basic Law Art.8 were refused. The challenge to the Review Ordinance provision restricting the Board from ordering release before minimum term (s.12(12)) was refused because the statutory scheme provides for ju…
4 Jul 2001
The Court held that the grievous bodily harm rule as part of murder mens rea and the secondary offender rule (requiring actual foresight of a real risk) are compatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the Basic Law; mandatory life sentences do not breach those rights given the statutory Long-Term Prison Sentences Review mechanism and Article 11(4) review can be given effect notwithstanding s83G; accordingly convictions and sentence appeals were dismissed (leave to appeal against sentence granted but dismissed).