22 Oct 2007
Conviction for the first charge was unsustainable because the prosecution failed to prove that the applicant's breach of Rules 9(a) and 14(a) created a real risk of danger to the tug crew; therefore the conviction and its sentence were quashed. The two year sentence on the second charge was manifestly excessive in the circumstances and was reduced to 17 months imprisonment.
20 Feb 2004
Two months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive on the facts, but because the magistrate had repeatedly and expressly led the appellant to expect no imprisonment a legitimate expectation was created; that promise was breached and the custodial sentences were therefore unsafe and must be set aside and replaced with fines of HK$5,000 per offence.
28 Jun 1985
While the 3‑year aggregate sentence was appropriate given the premeditated large‑scale thefts and breach of trust, the trial judge should have credited the applicant with the 9 weeks spent in custody in Brisbane awaiting extradition; accordingly the Court substituted a concurrent sentence of 2 years 10 months on each count.
11 Jul 1984
The convictions were upheld because the admitted facts and documentary alterations demonstrated a shared intention to deceive the bank and to place its economic interests at risk, the $140,000 constituted an 'advantage' accepted and offered to obtain favour under s9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and the loan card was a false accounting document; motive of 'corruption' beyond the statutory wording was not required; sentencing was reduced for totality but custodial sentences were appropriate.