25 Mar 1998
Where defendants represented by counsel asked to be fined but did not place financial information before the sentencing court, the court properly proceeded on the basis they could pay; the fines imposed were not excessive for the conduct and therefore the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
12 Jul 1984
The magistrate erred in law by treating the fine as adequate and by failing to activate the prior suspended sentence because she was bound by the High Court precedent (Reg v Lam Kam-chi) that generally requires custodial consideration for managing vice establishments and that suspended sentences should normally be activated for similar subsequent offences; nevertheless, the Court dismissed the review without altering the sentence because of delay and mitigating circumstances making immediate imprisonment unjust in this particular case.
4 Mar 1974
The Full Court held the Attorney General's review application failed: the six months' imprisonment suspended for eighteen months was not manifestly inadequate given the respondent's age, first-offender status and s.109A(1) requirements; courts should decide bribery sentences on their merits rather than applying a rule of automatic immediate custody for s.4(1) offences; confiscation of offered money is available under s.102 CPO though no hard rule was prescribed.
16 Dec 1972
Conviction for soliciting passengers which involves driving the vehicle falls within offences "under this Ordinance or under any regulations made thereunder" so that a magistrate was lawfully empowered by section 23(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance to order disqualification; however, because the magistrate's disqualification was a departure from common practice when the insurance offence was not charged, the appellate court varied the period of disqualification from six months to seven weeks.