19 Mar 1999
Leave out of time to appeal was refused because, on review of the sentencing judge's extensive reasons and the facts (scale, quantities, mainland connection, ongoing enterprise and applicant's involvement), the 7-year total sentence, although the starting point of nine years was at the high end and the discount arguably generous, was not manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
5 May 1994
The court refused to treat the applicant's prior abandonment as a nullity and refused the application for leave to appeal out of time because the applicant failed to persuade the court that the abandonment should be set aside; the court found no fault in the summing up and was not persuaded to follow earlier decisions that would alter the outcome in this case.
18 Nov 1993
Article 12(1) must be applied by examining the proven facts; the first appellant's conduct established intent to pass under s100(1) so he cannot benefit from the lighter penalty, whereas the second appellant's participation did not cogently establish specific intent and thus he is entitled to the lighter penalty under s100(2), warranting reduction of his sentence from four to two years.
1 Sept 1993
The court held that in applying Article 12(1) the sentencing court must look to the substance of the offender's conduct and the surrounding circumstances rather than be confined solely to the wording of the indictment; where the post‑committal law creates a lighter penalty for a lesser substantive offence the offender benefits, but if the evidence shows the offender's conduct corresponds to the more serious category under the new law (possession with intent) the lighter penalty does not apply.
8 Jul 1993
The trial judge's acceptance of fingerprint and other circumstantial evidence, combined with the deliberate lies of D2 which undermined the defendants' exculpatory account, was a proper basis to find joint possession and guilt; the sentences imposed were not excessive given the quantity and seriousness of the forged banknotes and cards and relevant authorities.
23 Mar 1993
Under Article 12(1) of the Bill of Rights and authority in R v Lai Kai Ming the applicant was entitled to be sentenced according to the maximum penalty in force at the date of sentence (three years); the original sentences exceeded that maximum and therefore were unlawful and had to be reduced to lawful concurrent terms after considering mitigation.
10 Feb 1993
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge had fairly and fully put the defence of lawful authority to the jury, the jury rejected that defence on the evidence, the alleged errors and criticisms lacked merit or were inconsequential, and no arguable ground for appeal was established.
15 Jul 1992
The court held that the possession of forged banknotes was a separate and distinct offence warranting a consecutive sentence, that the applicant's assistance did not attract a substantial discount because it was of limited practical value, and that the overall sentence of three and a half years was not manifestly excessive; appeal refused.
25 Mar 1992
The Court held that the conviction was safe because the forged banknotes were found in a sealed parcel on a shelf of a locked cabinet in the applicant's office, the applicant's fingerprint was on related paper from the same source, and the applicant had exclusive possession of the office at the material time, so the prosecution proved possession beyond reasonable doubt.
14 Nov 1986
Given the very large face value of the forged notes and this Court's guidance in Ngan Chun Yee, the six year sentence was not excessive despite the applicant's clear record; appellate interference was unwarranted.