21 Oct 2022
The sentencing judge's starting point and discounts were within acceptable guidelines, and the father's terminal illness did not constitute an exceptional humanitarian circumstance sufficient to justify reducing the sentence; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed and the six months' imprisonment sentence is affirmed.
9 Feb 2022
The magistrate erred by failing to procure and properly weigh up-to-date medical evidence and the Victim Impact Statement showing likely permanent ocular injury and psychological harm; the offence was of high gravity (targeted, sustained attack on the victim's eyes) rendering the Community Service Order manifestly inadequate. The appropriate starting point was 15 months' imprisonment, reduced by one-third for guilty plea and further reduced for delay, proceedings history and time served under the CSO, resulting in a substituted sentence of 6 months' imprisonment.
21 Jun 2021
The magistrate’s probation order was legally inadequate because she failed to demonstrate proper application and weighing of the sentencing principles applicable to a young offender who committed serious public order-related offences; given the admitted facts, context of riot, possession with intent and the DC/RC/TC suitability recommendation, the appropriate sentence was detention in a Detention Centre, and the probation order was set aside and replaced by detention.
23 Dec 2019
The Community Service Order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate given the respondent drove through a red light at a pedestrian crossing at near speed, causing serious injury; an appropriate sentence would have been 12 months' imprisonment, but the Court exercised discretion to leave the original order undisturbed because the respondent had completed the Community Service Order and substantial delay had occurred between sentence and review.
10 Aug 2018
The appellants were entitled to costs in respect of the magistrate's section 104 review, the applications to the Appeal Committee for leave and the substantive appeals to this Court (including properly attributable pre‑application legal advice subject to taxation), the section 81A review before the Court of Appeal, the 2nd appellant's bail application to a single permanent judge, and the 2nd and 3rd appellants' applications to the Court of Appeal for certificates on points of law; the Court refused an issues‑based apportionment and refused certification for three counsel on the Court of Appea…
10 Aug 2018
The Court ordered that the appellants recover their costs in the items specified: the magistrate's s104 costs (subject to enforcement of previously given undertakings now not opposed), costs of applications to the Appeal Committee for leave and of the substantive CFA appeals (first appellant's pre-application advice recoverable if properly attributable and taxed), costs of the 2nd appellant's bail pending appeal (and similarly for the 1st if sought), costs of the 2nd and 3rd appellants' Court of Appeal certification applications (but no certificate for three counsel), and costs of the section…
10 Aug 2018
The appellants were entitled to costs in respect of the magistrate's review under Magistrates Ordinance s104, costs of their applications to the Appeal Committee for leave and of the substantive CFA appeals (subject to taxation and proof for pre-application advice), costs of the 2nd appellant's bail application to a permanent judge (and similarly available to the 1st appellant if sought), costs of the 2nd and 3rd appellants' applications to the Court of Appeal for certificates on points of law (but not a certificate for three counsel), and costs of the section 81A review; the Secretary for Ju…
6 Feb 2018
The Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeals, held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to give guidance that unlawful assemblies involving disorder or violence should attract greater weight to punishment and deterrence in future sentencing but erred in applying that new approach retrospectively to these appellants and in interfering with the magistrate's discretionary weighting of factors where the sentences were not manifestly inadequate; quashed the custodial sentences imposed on review and reinstated the magistrate's original sentences; additionally found the Court of Appeal erred in it…
20 Dec 2017
The Appeal Committee declined to order early fixation or consolidation because, although the Court has power to hear separate appeals together where just and convenient, the present cases arise from different incidents with distinct facts, leave to appeal had not been granted in the present cases, the Wong Chi Fung appeals were ready to be heard on 16 January 2018 and would be prejudiced by vacating, and the limited procedural similarity and overlapping representation did not justify overriding readiness and practicality considerations; accordingly the discretionary relief sought was refused.
26 Oct 2017
The Court held that on a s81A review the Court of Appeal may, based on evidence proved, admitted or not in dispute at trial, correct erroneous factual findings or take into account relevant facts the sentencing court overlooked and interfere if the sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate, but it will not permit the prosecution to seek review on a different factual basis that it could have but did not pursue at trial; the respondents' certification applications failed and were dismissed.