21 May 1997
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the trial judge correctly assessed the seriousness of the offences, chose appropriate starting points and the sentences imposed were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; the applicant's mitigation did not justify interference.
5 Oct 1995
The Court refused to admit the further psychiatric report because its admission was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice under s.83(d) of the Criminal Procedural Ordinance and it could have been obtained for trial; the sentencing judge did not err in rejecting incredible mitigation and in exercising sentencing discretion—a starting point of 12 years reduced to 8 for plea and a final term of 4.5 years on the firearms charge was appropriate; there was no factual nexus between the firearm and passport offences to warrant concurrent sentences, so the application for leave t…
8 Dec 1987
The sentences of 18 months and 6 months as applied in precedent (R v Yu Wing Wut) were appropriate and not reduced for lack of evidence of changed circumstances; however magistrates lack statutory power to make partly concurrent/partly consecutive orders, so the second sentence must be reformulated to a wholly consecutive or wholly concurrent term; the court reduced the second sentence to 3 months to run consecutively to comply with statutory limits while preserving the same total effective sentence of 21 months.