6 Aug 2025
Leave to appeal against sentence is granted because the judge's approach—adopting a 23‑year starting point for 6.8 kg Ketamine, enhancing by 1 year for offending while on bail to 24 years and then applying a full one‑third plea discount—fell within arguable bounds of principled sentencing; the Court of Appeal should hear full argument, including whether Ketamine guidelines require revision.
19 Dec 2024
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the overall 4-year sentence was manifestly excessive due to potential double counting of enhancements for previous convictions leading to an inflated notional starting point, while the starting points for individual offences and the disqualification order were not themselves plainly unreasonable.
6 Jul 2022
The issues of appropriate starting points and whether to apply an individual or combined approach to multiple drugs are matters of judicial discretion; where those issues are reasonably arguable the Court will grant leave to appeal and issue an appeal aid certificate to enable full appellate determination.
17 May 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the starting points and the notional sentences after trial (with enhancements) were manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle, warranting appellate consideration on the specified grounds.
4 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal refused because the sentencing judge's calculation of the starting point conformed to established sentencing practice and fell within an appropriate range; there was no valid basis to disturb the sentence.
10 Nov 2021
The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge lawfully set a 15-month starting point for a habitual offender who reoffended soon after release, applied a legitimate 25% uplift for recidivism, and correctly reduced the sentence by one-third for an early guilty plea, resulting in an affirmed sentence of 10 months' imprisonment.
20 Mar 2020
The Court refused leave to challenge the 9‑year notional starting point because the combined approach and the identified aggravating features (substantial packaging operation, multiple drugs, prior trafficking convictions) made the starting point neither excessive nor wrong in principle; however it granted leave to Ma to appeal the reduction of the usual one‑third plea discount to 25% because it is reasonably arguable that the sentencing court may have erred in taking into account his giving evidence for a co‑defendant as a basis for reducing the discount.
7 May 2018
The magistrate was entitled to find on the evidence that the appellant was not acting in self-defence but launched an attack that inflicted grievous bodily harm; the conviction was safe because the prosecution proved every element beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence of 11 months imprisonment (starting point 12 months reduced by one month for clear record) was within the proper range and not excessive, therefore both conviction and sentence were affirmed.
13 Feb 2018
The Court held the sentence was not manifestly excessive: an 18‑month starting point for laundering about HK$1,000,000 over six months was appropriate; a one‑third reduction for plea was correctly applied; an additional two‑month reduction for delay/totality was reasonable; therefore the resulting sentence of 10 months imprisonment was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
30 Jan 2018
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive; notwithstanding the judge's unexplained modest deviation from an arithmetic starting point and failure to advert to Form 8 status as aggravating, the overall sentence fell within the permissible range of discretion and was not manifestly excessive.