25 Feb 2004
The Court exercised its sentencing discretion and refused credit for the 44 days detained in the Mainland because the applicants fled Hong Kong to avoid arrest, were thus largely responsible for their detention, the period was not unduly long, and the imposed sentences were not excessive.
1 Jun 2001
The judge found the magistrate had considered all mitigation and had not expressly rejected the appellant's asserted belief; a ten-year age disparity justified a short custodial sentence; ordering a detention centre report made clear custodial options were being considered so no false expectation of non-custodial outcome arose; the medical report of depression/anxiety did not justify suspension; accordingly the three-month concurrent custodial sentences were not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
20 Jul 1976
Conviction was upheld under the presumption in s.46, but the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was excessive because a material mitigating fact — the appellant's involuntary enforced overnight stay in Hong Kong while in transit without intent to import or dispose of the drug locally — was not placed before or apparently considered by the trial judge; accordingly the sentence was reduced to 2 years' imprisonment.
3 May 1973
Appeals dismissed because identification evidence was overwhelming and the possession/use of a dangerous modified starting pistol, together with the seriousness of bank robberies, made the imposed sentences appropriate and not open to appellate interference.
17 Jan 1972
The appeal did not show any sentencing error warranting interference; the magistrate properly exercised discretion based on the probation report and the appellant's record, but the court used its discretion to vary the sentence to a conditional discharge with recognizance given credible offers of suitable guardianship.