3 Apr 1996
The sentence of five years' imprisonment was appropriate because the quantity of drugs placed the offence within the third tier under Lau Tak-ming and the court had already applied a discount in excess of 33%; there was no basis to find the sentence wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
17 Dec 1981
The appeal was allowed because, on the facts, committing a 13‑year‑old first offender to a reformatory until age 18 was inappropriate; the correct course was to quash the committal, record no conviction and require a bond under Section 96 of the Magistrate's Ordinance to secure good behaviour and education for twelve months, particularly given the mother's willingness to accept and supervise the child.
11 Apr 1973
Because the appellant was only 14 and there was credible additional evidence (mother's undertaking and probation officer consultation) indicating a realistic prospect of rehabilitation under supervision, the court held that custody was not mandatory and substituted a two‑year probation order with stringent conditions for the sentence originally imposed.