18 May 2005
The Court held that although an immediate custodial sentence was required, the original total sentence of two years was manifestly excessive for an employee of moderate‑scale manufacturing operation with good character who cooperated early; allowing the appeal in part the appropriate total sentence after discount for plea and cooperation is 18 months imprisonment to run concurrently.
30 Jun 1998
The appeal was allowed in part: the Court found the learned Magistrate had given undue weight to unproven triad involvement and improperly discounted the appellant's clear record due to non‑residency; having regard to the quantity of cargo, role as Master, and the guilty plea discount, the appropriate sentence on the first charge is seven months imprisonment.
5 Oct 1995
The Court refused to admit the further psychiatric report because its admission was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice under s.83(d) of the Criminal Procedural Ordinance and it could have been obtained for trial; the sentencing judge did not err in rejecting incredible mitigation and in exercising sentencing discretion—a starting point of 12 years reduced to 8 for plea and a final term of 4.5 years on the firearms charge was appropriate; there was no factual nexus between the firearm and passport offences to warrant concurrent sentences, so the application for leave t…
7 Nov 1989
The Court held the trial judges' starting point of 4 years was excessive in these cases given the mitigating features (youth, early guilty pleas, limited participation, relatively minor injuries and difficult detention-camp conditions); while deterrence and protection of staff justified custodial sentences, a reduced term of 2 years' imprisonment appropriately balanced mitigation and public interest, and the original 3-year sentences were substituted accordingly.
14 Sept 1988
The Court held the judge's starting point understated the seriousness; an appropriate totality starting point was 12 years, which could be discounted to 9 years for guilty pleas, but the actual 6-year concurrent sentences were manifestly inadequate; accordingly the Court varied the sentences to 8 years on each count to run concurrently to reflect seriousness and proper discounting.
12 Sept 1986
Because the applicant may have played a secondary role to her husband and that possibility had not received sufficient consideration below, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 from 8 years to 7 years while leaving Count 3 (9 months) concurrent, thereby allowing the application and treating it as an appeal.