8 Mar 2006
The sentencing judge was entitled to enhance the starting point beyond the top of the Lau Tak-ming suggested band because the appellant's very serious and repeated narcotics convictions aggravated the offence and warranted greater deterrence; midazolam attracted no additional sentence; accordingly the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the sentence upheld.
28 Nov 2005
The Court held that the magistrate's 18‑month starting point for trafficking was manifestly excessive in the circumstances; after applying the relevant tariff, aggravating factors and a discount for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence for trafficking was 9 months' imprisonment; the possession sentence was excessive and should be 1 month; the possession sentence was to run consecutively to the trafficking sentence resulting in a total of 10 months' imprisonment; appeal allowed to that extent.
29 Sept 2005
The magistrate's adoption of an excessive two‑year starting point and failure to inquire whether the small quantity (2.89 g) was for personal use were errors of sentencing; applying the correct approach (treating midazolam as comparable to methaqualone and giving the appellant the benefit of doubt on personal use and the guilty plea) requires reducing the sentence to 2 months' imprisonment.
27 Aug 2003
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the original 18‑month sentence was excessive on the facts and established tariff authorities; having regard to the small quantity of midazolam, applicable precedents and the aggravating feature of supplying addicts at a methadone clinic, a sentence of six months imprisonment was appropriate despite the appellant's extensive record.
30 Sept 1998
The Court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence to three months' imprisonment, endorsing the precedent that small quantities of midazolam attract a maximum of six months and that, for the facts of this case (four tablets totalling 0.07 gramme and the appellant's background), a three month term is appropriate for consistency in sentencing.
12 Sept 1997
Sentences for possession of midazolam must be distinguished from heroin and should be set by narcotic weight; for simple possession where the narcotic weight is under 500 grammes (and in many real cases far less) the custodial sentence should not exceed six months as a general upper limit for small quantities, magistrates retaining discretion by reference to offender's character and circumstances. Applying these principles the appellant's sentence of nine months for possession of 3.8 mg midazolam was excessive and is reduced to three months' imprisonment.