3 Dec 2015
Given four separate thefts of valuable mobile phones in a busy bar and the judge's appropriate application of starting points, aggravating features and plea discounts subject to the principle of totality, a global sentence of 24 months imprisonment after plea was not manifestly excessive; the application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore refused.
12 Feb 2004
The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion, gave full credit for the guilty plea and surrender, imposed an exceptionally lenient term and appropriately activated the prior suspended sentence concurrently; there was no basis for appellate interference and the appeal was dismissed.
28 Aug 2003
The trial judge correctly applied the Barrick/Clark guidelines, lawfully assessed total criminality for multiple victims and counts, properly discounted for the guilty plea and time abroad, and the resultant concurrent sentences of 7 years 6 months on each count were not shown to be excessive; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
20 Dec 2000
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal: the sentence on the first charge was appropriately derived from a proper starting point, reductions and an authorised enhancement under Cap.455; although the judge misapplied the totality principle on the second charge in a way favourable to the applicant, that error did not justify disturbing the sentence on the first charge.
20 Aug 1999
The starting point of six years for this concerted, premeditated and violent attack on a vulnerable unarmed victim was appropriate; after allowing the one-third discount for the guilty plea the four-year sentence was proper and not manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
26 Nov 1997
In the absence of evidence linking possession of another's identity card to the offender's immigration status or to use for employment or remaining in Hong Kong, a sentence of 15 months is not appropriate; possession simpliciter is an unconnected offence warranting a lower sentence (3 months in these cases).
6 Mar 1996
The judge did not err: he considered mitigation and the totality of sentences; because the applicant committed the offences while on bail for matters resulting in a 13‑month sentence it was proper to order the new sentences consecutive, and the aggregate sentence of six years was lawful and not excessive.
2 Aug 1995
The Court held that a six year starting point was manifestly excessive for these offences; the correct starting point was five years which, after allowing mitigation for the applicant's plea of guilty and personal circumstances, was reduced to an effective sentence of three years imprisonment. Repayments intended to conceal the thefts do not mitigate sentence.
26 Oct 1994
The court found the trial summing-up fair and no bias existed, refused leave to appeal against conviction, and held the sentences (20 years for 1st and 3rd applicants; 22 years for 2nd applicant) were not manifestly excessive given the armed robbery involving firearms, grenades and a running gun battle; the court declined to increase the 2nd applicant's sentence under s.831(3)(b) but noted it could have been higher had he been represented.
7 Sept 1994
The judge below treated possession as if it were trafficking and failed to adjust for the lesser offence, the quantities involved and the plea of guilty; consequently the sentences of 2 years on each count were manifestly excessive and wrong in principle and must be reduced to 1 year on the first count and 18 months on the second count to run consecutively (total 2 years).