23 Feb 2001
The magistrate did not err in principle: he had sufficient material, properly weighed mitigation, lawfully applied deterrence appropriate to breach of trust, and his reduction of the starting point to a total of 9 months was within permissible bounds; the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
4 Mar 1999
Reading parts of the 2nd Defendant's statement in open court irrevocably waived confidentiality and privilege in respect of the whole document; because the document relates to the subject-matter of the civil action it is necessary for production under O.24 r.7 and must be ordered produced.
16 Feb 1990
The Court held the sentence of 3.5 years was appropriate and not excessive given the seriousness of bringing unauthorised entrants into Hong Kong, and that the sentencing judge properly applied the Ho Siu Lun guideline and discounted the sentence for the guilty plea and mitigation; appeal refused.
22 Apr 1988
The Court held that foreign nationality and language difficulties are generally not weighty mitigating factors and, given the quantity involved and the circumstances placing the offence among the more serious examples of possession for unlawful trafficking, the eight year sentence was not manifestly excessive; appeal refused.
20 Nov 1986
The Court held that although a 2 year sentence was high it was not manifestly excessive; having given fullest allowance for the appellant's alcohol‑related personality disorder and his guilty plea, the appropriate reduction was to 18 months imprisonment on each count, all to run concurrently.
2 Oct 1986
The Court held the original global sentence of 10 years was excessive because the offences were distinct and required appropriate individual sentences; having taken into account the guilty plea and limited mitigating factors, the court reduced the burglary sentence from 4 to 3 years, assault from 2 to 1 year, upheld 4 years for use of a firearm, imposed 1 year for possession to run concurrently, ordered counts 1,2 and 4 consecutive and count 5 concurrent, reducing the total sentence to 8 years.
19 Jan 1973
Where large quantities of dangerous drugs and evidence of a distribution centre exist the public interest and deterrence can justify imprisonment despite s.109A; the trial judge did consider relevant factors and was justified in imposing imprisonment, but modest reductions were appropriate for the 1st appellant for his plea of guilty and for the 3rd appellant for youth and mitigating circumstances.
28 Dec 1970
The convictions and sentences were upheld because the evidence (including accomplice testimony and the appellant's statement) was sufficient for the jury to convict and the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion, having considered reports and mitigation; there was no demonstrated ground of bias or undue harshness to justify interference.