26 Apr 2021
The court held that the particulars as served, read with the Summary of Facts and available video evidence, provided reasonable information under the Indictment Rules and did not prejudice or embarrass the defendant; accordingly the application for further particulars was dismissed and the prosecution complied with the Indictment Rules.
21 Sept 2020
The Court held that as a general rule a sentencing judge should not reduce the one-third discount for an early guilty plea merely because the defendant gave evidence for a co-defendant which was disbelieved. A reduction is only justified where the defendant used his testimony to dishonestly diminish his own culpability or otherwise actively disputed the factual basis on which his plea was accepted. Applying that principle the appellant was entitled to the full one-third discount and the sentence was reduced accordingly.
30 Aug 2019
The Court held that while driving a public service vehicle dangerously is a serious aggravating factor and the appellant's driving was 'continuous and reckless' on the evidence, the judge's adopted starting points were too high because the cause of prolonged inattention was unknown; accordingly the appropriate starting points were adjusted to 4 years (Charge 1) and 2.5 years (Charge 2), each reduced by 25% for a late guilty plea, and totality applied by making 9 months of Charge 2 consecutive resulting in the same aggregate term of 3 years 9 months imprisonment; the driving improvement order…
19 Feb 2014
The Amended Brief Facts admitted by the Appellant did not include the essential element that the request was made by a police officer in uniform and did not clearly establish that the statutory warning was given; therefore the facts admitted did not support the charge and the guilty plea was a nullity. The conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside and the matter remitted for retrial before another magistrate.
18 Feb 2010
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that his guilty pleas were a nullity; the pleas were taken in Putonghua with an experienced solicitor confirming the pleas and facts, and the appellant's assertions (nervousness, denial, partial admission, lack of recollection, unwillingness to be punished) were insufficient to invalidate the pleas.
13 Oct 2008
The Court held the applicant's plea was voluntary and informed as evidenced by solicitor affirmations and the court transcript; the error in the summary of facts was immaterial and known to the applicant; there was no viable basis to set aside the plea and therefore the application for leave to appeal the conviction out of time was dismissed.
23 Jan 1998
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge lawfully and appropriately set a three‑year starting point per domestic burglary, applied the totality principle to adopt an overall starting point of six years, took proper account of the applicant's prior record and guilty pleas, and the inadequate eleven-line summary did not render the sentence disproportionate; the sentence of concurrent four-year terms was therefore appropriate and in accordance with authority.