26 Mar 2010
The Magistrate applied appropriate sentencing principles (Lau Tak-ming starting point for cocaine, ignored cannabis quantity, allowed a 50% reduction for guilty plea and mitigation at a Sivan hearing, and adjusted concurrency on review), and the resulting aggregate sentence of 24 months was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
24 Jun 2003
The application for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence is refused because the applicant offered no acceptable explanation for the 12‑month delay and no valid ground of appeal; the sentence of 8 years was within the correct guideline range, the one‑third discount for guilty plea was applied, and the information supplied was too vague and produced no actionable results to justify further reduction.
2 Jun 2000
Convictions were upheld because the trial judge rejected the allegations of assault and planting and accepted the prosecution's inferences from the quantity and presence of packaging; however, the aggregate sentence had to be reduced because treating the combined narcotic weight as trafficking for both charges produced a sentence equivalent to trafficking in the combined amount, which was not justified given only part of the total was trafficking; therefore the sentence was reduced by six months by altering the concurrency of the sentences.
27 Apr 1995
The trial judge's directions were adequate and not misleading; the jury could properly be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's knowledge and constructive possession; no special Broadhurst-type direction was required; and the 22-year sentence was appropriate under LAU Tak-ming principles where the offender's precise role was not proved, so leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.