8 May 2013
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked merit: the sentencing judge properly applied the Abdallah guideline, the final sentence of 14 years (after full plea discount) was not excessive or wrong in principle, and the information supplied by the applicant was of no practical value and did not justify any further reduction.
29 Jun 2011
The applicant was entitled to the 50% cooperation discount set out in Z v HKSAR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 183 because he gave truthful material evidence at trial; leave to appeal out of time was granted because the delay was explained by the need to await the trial and the applicant had strong grounds; the sentence was reduced to 12 years and six months imprisonment (50% of a 25‑year starting point).
26 Mar 2009
The court held that D1 was not denied the fundamental right to cross-examine because he had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and was forewarned of the contents of the statement; further cross-examination would not have produced material advantage. The court also held that D2's post-sentence, substantial cooperation (multiple statements and key trial testimony leading to convictions of others) justified granting leave out of time, treating the application as an appeal and reducing the sentence from seven to five years imprisonment.
24 Feb 2009
The court increased the cooperation discount to 50% because the appellant fulfilled his promise of substantial assistance (identifying co-conspirators and testifying leading to convictions), and accordingly reduced concurrent sentences from 16 to 12 months and ordered immediate release; the court noted the original sentence was lenient but maintained the need for deterrence.
22 Nov 2007
Leave to appeal out of time was granted and the appeals were allowed in part: because the appellants provided further material assistance after sentence that materially aided the prosecution of a co-offender, a further reduction of one year was appropriate but the overall discount should not exceed 50% of the notional starting point given the already generous original reduction.
28 Jan 2004
Given the further truthful and material assistance acknowledged by ICAC but having regard to credit already allowed at sentence and the applicant's role and record, the Court awarded modest additional credit, set aside the 27‑month sentence and substituted a 24‑month sentence to run concurrently.
21 Oct 2003
The court held that the appellant was entitled to a reduction in sentence for the cooperation he provided to the ICAC and for fulfilling, so far as possible, his promise to assist, but the reduction should be limited because his assistance did not amount to 'supergrass' value nor did he face proved danger; accordingly the court ordered one sentence (charge 3) to run concurrently with charge 1, reducing total imprisonment from 2 years 8 months to 2 years.
11 Feb 1998
Because the appellant failed to provide evidence to rebut statutory presumptions or to prove the nature or provenance of the claimed $8,000,000, the Chief Judge was entitled to quantify the confiscation on the balance of probabilities without crediting that sum; the 7‑year default term was not manifestly excessive or in breach of totality; however the appellant's cooperation warranted a substantial reduction of each 25‑year concurrent sentence to 12 years.
25 Aug 1995
The Court held that substantial and effective assistance to the police, even if provided prior to trial and notwithstanding that the defendant subsequently contested the charge at trial, justifies a materially greater discount from the sentencing starting point than that given by the District Judge; accordingly the District Judge's 20% reduction was insufficient and the sentence was reduced from five years eight months to four years imprisonment.
15 Mar 1995
For possession of 38.53g of heroin the correct starting point was seven years; although consecutive sentences would have produced a total of nine years, the applicant's substantial and useful information leading to 25.9 kg of heroin seized and convictions of five persons classified him effectively as a supergrass and entitled him to a two‑thirds discount, reducing the aggregate sentence to three years; accordingly the trafficking sentence was reduced from four to three years and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.