15 Apr 2025
The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentencing judge properly applied sentencing principles including the totality principle; the aggregate four‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive given significant aggravating factors (extensive prior convictions, professional offending profile, use of tools and offending on bail), and appellate intervention was not justified.
26 Jun 2014
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed because the sentencing judge acted within proper sentencing principles: the starting point was justified by the planned violent damage, a 50% discount for guilty plea and assistance was appropriate, and the judge permissibly ordered the 15-month sentence to run consecutively to the 20-month burglary sentence because the offence was committed while on bail.
9 Jun 2009
The court held the magistrate did not err in principle in adopting the chosen starting points or in the sentencing exercise; given the appellant's record and that an offence was committed while on bail the aggregate effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was appropriate and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
14 Dec 2006
The magistrate's sentences were within proper sentencing range and justified by the appellant's extensive history of theft, the aggravating factor of offending while on bail and the presence of funds on his person; the appellate court found no error in principle and dismissed the appeal.
7 Oct 2005
Given the nature of the offences as continuous, commercial supply to many customers, the commission of the second set of offences within six weeks while on bail, and the applicant's refusal to assist police, a significant part of the sentences must run consecutively; therefore the total sentence of four years was not manifestly excessive.
22 Jun 2005
There were no exceptional circumstances to disturb the magistrate's immediate custodial sentences. The magistrate properly considered mitigation, the appellant's persistent offending and offending while on bail, and applied an appropriate starting point and discounts; consecutive sentences were justified and totality principles were observed.
8 Feb 2005
The sentences imposed (4 months for the first offence and 8 months for the second, ordered to run consecutively to total 12 months) were within proper sentencing principles and not manifestly excessive because the second offence was committed while on bail and the starting points used conformed with established guideline authority (HKSAR v. Mok Cho Tik).
2 May 2002
The Court held there was no error in principle: each offence properly fell into the first Lau Tak Ming tariff band, consecutive sentences were appropriate because the offences were separate and on different days and the second was committed on bail (an aggravating factor), the individual and total sentences were not manifestly excessive, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
11 Jan 2000
The starting point of 24 months was manifestly excessive for the shoplifting offences; the court substituted 8 months on each shoplifting count (after appropriate reduction) and ordered part concurrent and part consecutive to produce a 12-month effective term for MA1045/1999; the appeal against the subsequent pickpocketing sentence (MA1046/1999) was dismissed and because the offence was committed on bail the sentence for MA1046/1999 should run consecutive, producing an aggregate term of 28 months.
11 Jan 2000
The court held the original 24-month starting point (reduced to 16 months) for the shoplifting offences was manifestly excessive and substituted concurrent 16-month sentences with reduced sentences of 8 months on each count with part-concurrency/part-consecutivity producing an effective 12-month term for MA1045/1999; the appeal against MA1046/1999 was dismissed but the pickpocketing sentence was ordered to run consecutive to the shoplifting sentence because the offence was committed on bail and is an aggravating factor, producing a total effective term of 28 months.