10 Oct 2019
The judge correctly applied the tariff in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, adopted a starting point of 8 years 3 months and properly reduced it by one-third for a timely guilty plea to 5 years 6 months; the factual findings rejecting the applicant's claim of partial personal use were justified, therefore there was no basis to grant leave to appeal against sentence.
11 Dec 2013
Enhancement of a starting point for sentencing based on prior trafficking convictions is permissible but must be proportionate; for 5.4g methamphetamine the appropriate tariff starting point is 5 years, a 6 month enhancement was sufficient to reflect culpability from prior trafficking convictions, and after applying a one third reduction for guilty plea and a further 6 month reduction for self-consumption the substituted sentence of 3 years and 2 months' imprisonment was appropriate.
21 Nov 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentence (starting point within tariff and discounted by one‑third for mitigation) was within the sentencing judge's discretion, mitigation had been adequately considered and there was no proper reason to reduce the sentence further.
16 May 2006
The sentencing judge applied established precedents and guidelines to set starting points for the drug offences, correctly applied a one‑third discount for guilty pleas and the resulting sentences and overall term were not manifestly excessive; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
14 May 2003
The Court upheld the sentencing judge's approach: for trafficking approximately 2 kg of methamphetamine a 24-year starting point was consistent with appellate guidelines and a one-third reduction for the guilty plea to 16 years was appropriate; disparate sentences in other cases do not justify interference absent error in principle or obvious excessiveness.
20 Dec 2000
Leave out of time was refused because the applicant's explanation for delay was inadequate and prospects of success on appeal were negligible; the 9-year sentence was not excessive given the tariff for the quantity of methamphetamine and the limited weight of the personal mitigating factors.
20 Jan 2000
The Court held the evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury's unanimous verdict; the summing-up was adequate and there was no substance to allegations of police framing or inconsistencies; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed and, because the application was completely unmeritorious and the applicant had been warned, three months of remand time was ordered not to be counted towards his sentence.
16 Sept 1998
The court held that, having regard to the substantial quantity of methamphetamine involved and established sentencing principles, the immediate custodial sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and did not warrant leave to appeal.
16 May 1997
Although the starting point of 30 years was on the high side, it fell within the established range for the very large quantity of methamphetamine involved; a full and generous discount for the guilty plea resulted in an effective sentence of 17 years which was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.