18 Mar 2025
Given the defendant's extensive and recent history of similar burglary convictions the appropriate starting point was set at 33 months; applying the one‑third reduction for early guilty plea produced an effective custodial sentence of 22 months.
25 Sept 2024
Convictions for theft and possession of article for theft are upheld. Although the two matters are unconnected and ordinarily warrant full consecutive sentences, the court applied the overall sentencing (totality) principle and ordered that of the 5-month sentence in this appeal, 6 weeks be served concurrently with the 6-month sentence in TMCC 1724/2024; the remainder to be served consecutively.
16 Jul 2024
On rehearing the court found the magistrate properly assessed facts and mitigation, correctly treated the recent similar conviction as an aggravating factor, and adopted a reasonable starting point reduced to 3 months' imprisonment on guilty plea; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Mar 2023
The sentencing judge properly exercised discretion: the appellant's conduct was aimed at intimidating an alleged rival and was more serious than the Lau Chi Hung facts; the judge considered the appellant's psychiatric reports, substance abuse causation, prior convictions and recent release, and the 3-month immediate custodial sentence was neither principle-erroneous nor manifestly excessive, and therefore should be upheld.
29 Dec 2022
The High Court upheld the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion: the judge correctly considered the extent of obstruction (1.44m2), the busy pedestrian‑bridge location, the appellant's plea and personal circumstances, and relevant precedents; HKD300 per count (HKD600 total) with a six‑month payment period was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
13 Jun 2022
The guilty pleas were voluntary and the facts admitted supported the convictions; the sentencing judge did not misdirect or improperly exercise discretion in imposing fines of HK$2,000 on each count after considering the offences, the appellant's antecedents and financial means; the appeal is dismissed.
10 May 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion under RTO s39A(3), took into account the appellant's old prior conviction and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentence imposed (HKD 6,000 fine, 12-month disqualification and mandatory driving improvement course) was not manifestly excessive.
6 Dec 2021
Immediate imprisonment was an error in principle and manifestly excessive given the marginal exceedance of the statutory limit (25 vs 22 micrograms/100ml), absence of accident, injury or property damage, and the appellant's related prior conviction being 8 years old; sentence substituted with a fine of HK$9,000 while disqualification and course requirements were maintained.
7 Sept 2021
The sentencing judge properly increased the 30-month starting point by 9 months given the aggravating features and the applicant's extensive dishonesty and burglary record; after full plea discount and an additional one-month reduction for age the resulting sentence of 2 years 1 month was within a proper range and not reasonably arguable as excessive, therefore leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
16 Aug 2021
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's sentencing decision was within the proper range: the appellant's multiple prior convictions and two clear aggravating factors (physical restraint of the victim preventing escape and deliberate smashing causing loss of the victim's mobile phone) justified the individual terms (4 months for assault, 8 months for attempted criminal damage) and the aggregate sentence of 10 months (with partial concurrency) was neither excessive nor contrary to sentencing principles.