31 Aug 2021
The application for leave to appeal was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds: the judge properly evaluated mitigation, correctly found claimed ignorance implausible, and applied an appropriate sentencing starting point given the specially protected status of elephant ivory and the quantity seized; a 24‑month sentence after plea was not manifestly excessive.
30 May 1997
There was no evidence the bear gall bladder was possessed for commercial purpose and the magistrate admitted error in not holding a Newton enquiry; accordingly the appellate court set aside the excessive $125,000 fine and substituted a fine of $40,000 under s.6(2).
26 May 1997
Where prohibited substances were accepted as commercial stock the magistrate was entitled to impose the higher scale under s.13(a); however the sentencing court must consider the offender's means and, on the presented accounts, the appellate court reduced the fine from $150,000 to $80,000 as the magistrate did not have sufficient financial material before him.
15 Oct 1996
The court held that Schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance governs sentencing guidance rather than the apparent minima in s113(c); fines must reflect totality, deterrence and the offender's ability to pay, and the magistrate's total fine of HKD 425,000 was excessive and disproportionate for a 71‑year‑old small herbalist. The court substituted fines to a total of HKD 95,000 (HKD 10,000 for each of five s6(1) counts and HKD 15,000 for each of three s6(3) counts) and ordered refund of any balance paid.
15 Oct 1996
Court found that schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, not the table in s.113(c), supplies sentencing guidance; applied totality and deterrence principles while giving significant weight to appellant's means and limited scale of operation and reduced aggregate fine from $425,000 to $95,000 as adequate and proportionate.
15 Oct 1996
Schedule 8 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, not the table in s113(c), governs applicable fines; the totality of the fines and the appellant's means must be considered; the original total fine of $425,000 was excessive for a 71‑year‑old small herbalist and was reduced to a total of $95,000 by substituting $10,000 for each of five s6(1) offences and $15,000 for each of three s6(3) offences; balance to be refunded if paid.
15 Oct 1996
The court held that the total fine of HK$425,000 was excessive given the appellant's means, age and the scale of his business; the correct sentencing approach uses Schedule 8 guidelines and requires fines proportionate to the offender's ability to pay and the need for deterrence, and therefore substituted a total fine of HK$95,000 (individual adjustments specified).