7 Nov 2013
The Court upheld the sentencing approach: maintain a 4‑year starting point for the robbery, allow a reduction for the guilty plea to 2 years 8 months, and uphold a consecutive 15‑month term for unlawful remaining because it was a separate offence and the applicant had a prior conviction.
30 May 2013
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate correctly applied the So Man King sentencing guideline, appropriately discounted the sentence for the periods of administrative detention (giving almost full credit), and there were no strong humanitarian or other grounds to justify interference with the discretionary sentence of 14 months imprisonment.
10 Apr 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the period of administrative detention (11 months) was unrelated to the offences committed after the appellant's unlawful reentry and therefore the sentencing court was not required to give credit for that detention; there was no basis to regard the 15 month total sentence as manifestly excessive.
15 Apr 2011
The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion by applying the established benchmark, granting a generous 3-month humanitarian discount plus custody credit, and the Court of First Instance found no error in that exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.
30 Sept 2009
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 15 month sentence because the magistrate reasonably treated the guilty plea as the sole mitigation, found no exceptional humanitarian grounds, regarded the appellant's subsequently raised fear claims as lacking credibility, and concluded there was no basis for appellate interference.
7 Dec 2007
The Court held the magistrate did not err: the sentences on each count were within established tariffs, the magistrate properly accounted for the appellant's repeated breaches and the need for deterrence, and applied the totality principle appropriately by partly concurrent and partly consecutive terms; therefore the aggregate sentence of 28 months was not excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
31 Aug 2001
Where an appellant pleaded guilty to remaining in Hong Kong without authority after unlawful landing and was found at a place of employment, a 15‑month custodial sentence is appropriate and will be upheld on appeal absent strong humanitarian considerations to justify a departure.
29 Mar 2000
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate acted within sentencing discretion: he considered the appellant's serious prior convictions and mitigating circumstances, imposed a sentence below the ordinary range (18 months to 2 years) and there was no basis for appellate interference.
7 Jul 1999
The sentence was upheld because the learned Magistrate's choice of sentence was within the normal range for the offence, appropriately increased due to prior illegal entry and antecedents, and was not shown to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive; humanitarian and medical considerations did not justify interference.
7 Jul 1999
The appeal was dismissed because there was no fault in the learned Magistrate's reasoning; the appellant had a prior similar conviction and reoffended shortly after, and the sentencing court's exercise of discretion to impose 18 months' imprisonment was justified and not open to appellate interference.