11 Dec 2024
The judge accepted PW1 as a credible and reliable witness, found the CCTV and other evidence inconsistent with the appellant's account, held the prosecution proved the disputed fact of the fish's value (HK$20,000) beyond reasonable doubt, and concluded the appellant's guilty plea was valid; accordingly the conviction was safe and was upheld.
22 Nov 2024
The judge’s exercise of sentencing discretion was appropriate: the starting points and the 25% discount (including a 5% allowance for age) were justified on the facts and law, the partial consecutive term was warranted by additional harm, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused; the 15‑year sentence is affirmed.
31 May 2024
On the evidence the court accepted the police witnesses as credible, rejected the defendants' accounts as inherently improbable, and held beyond reasonable doubt that both defendants were aware of and jointly trafficked in the total quantities of drugs seized from the Room; that finding forms the basis for sentencing.
28 May 2024
The High Court held the trial judge did not err in principle or exercise of discretion: the sentencing starting points, limited plea discount after a Newton hearing, recognition of aggravating factors (young victim, breach of trust, severity of injuries) and the ordering of partial concurrency were within lawful range; therefore the sentences (15 months and 6 months with partial concurrency totaling 20 months immediate imprisonment) were affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
28 Mar 2024
Although the trial judge erred in treating an admission of trafficking as automatically precluding consideration of a claim that a significant portion was for personal use, the appellant produced insufficient evidence and did not testify or quantify any personal-use portion; on the correct application of precedent the facts do not justify any reduction, so the appeal against sentence is dismissed and the original sentence is upheld.
19 Feb 2024
After reviewing the trial record de novo with appropriate deference to the trial judge's advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses, the judge's credibility findings were not perverse; the appellant's oral admission and cautioned statements were voluntary and admissible; circumstantial and corroborating evidence permitted the inference that the items belonged to another and that the appellant intended permanent deprivation; the refusal to hold a Newton hearing and the amendment to the charge did not produce unfairness — accordingly conviction and sentence were upheld.
31 Aug 2023
The trial judge’s categorical refusal to apply the Wong Suet Hau guidance and to hold a Newton hearing where the defence persisted in a personal-use contention was an error of principle and procedure; that error warranted granting leave to appeal against sentence to allow the sentencing issues to be properly considered.
12 Jul 2023
Given the material and disputed factual issues that are significant for sentencing (quantity attributable to each defendant and whether there was a joint enterprise), the court directed that the defendants should plead guilty to the offence as charged and that a Newton hearing be held to determine those factual issues; defendants to be arraigned before Deputy Judge Martin Hui and the prosecution to call required witnesses at the Newton inquiry.
26 Apr 2023
The plea was unequivocal; the defendant was adequately advised and understood the facts and the element of knowledge; there were no sufficient grounds in the interests of justice to exercise the court's discretion to allow reversal of plea; the application was refused and the matter listed for plea and sentence.
7 Dec 2022
The trial judge correctly accepted the prosecution experts and rejected the defence expert as unreliable; the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was driving at 119 km/h and the sentence imposed (HK$2,000 fine, six‑month disqualification and requirement to complete a driving improvement course) complied with statutory requirements and was not manifestly excessive, therefore the sentencing appeal is dismissed.