29 Dec 2017
The sentencing judge lawfully exercised discretion after considering the nature of the offences, the appellant's addiction and rehabilitation prospects, his substantial prior convictions (including trafficking) and the aggravation of offending while on bail; a detoxification centre order was appropriate and there was no error of law or principle.
31 Dec 1987
The Court held that the conviction on the first count was safe because, on the evidence, the trial judge was entitled to reject the second defendant's claim of exclusive possession and to find the first defendant guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking; however the conviction on the second count (possession of instruments) was unsafe because the judge failed to give adequate reasons for that verdict and it is therefore quashed; the application to appeal the sentence by Wong Siu Ling was dismissed and the custodial sentence of five years (with one month concurrent) was upheld.
31 Oct 1978
The conviction was quashed because the magistrate failed to address a material unexplained discrepancy (a syringe seen in the appellant's hand that was neither charged nor produced), rendering the verdict unsafe; the fine under section 100(b) was set aside because the magistrate did not sufficiently inform the accused that a fine would be imposed for giving false evidence so as to make the imposition inappropriate.