5 Nov 2020
The magistrate applied the established 15‑month tariff for a first offender pleading guilty, found no valid mitigation to justify departure, and properly exercised discretion by ordering 5 months concurrent; the resulting effective additional 10 months was not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
10 Oct 2019
The judge correctly applied the tariff in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, adopted a starting point of 8 years 3 months and properly reduced it by one-third for a timely guilty plea to 5 years 6 months; the factual findings rejecting the applicant's claim of partial personal use were justified, therefore there was no basis to grant leave to appeal against sentence.
23 Nov 2018
Application for extension of time was refused because delay of two and a half years was not satisfactorily explained and, on the merits, there was no credible evidence that the applicant made a meaningful contribution to the anti‑trafficking campaign or provided assistance of practical value to authorities; the court accepted Customs' assessment and therefore refused any discount and dismissed the appeal, leaving the original sentence intact.
18 Aug 2016
The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused because the sentence of 12 years and 9 months was not wrong or manifestly excessive: the judge correctly adopted the tariff starting point (18 years 2 months), enhanced it for an international element (to 19 years 2 months) and properly applied a one‑third discount for early plea; poverty and claimed coercion do not warrant further reduction in a serious trafficking case.
9 Sept 2015
The Court allowed the appeal, concluding the judge erred in not alerting defence counsel to his preliminary disinclination regarding the self‑consumption mitigation, and on resentencing adopted the judge's starting point of 7 years 3 months as within tariff discretion, applied a 10% discount for self‑consumption because the trafficking was commercial in nature and a substantial portion was for trafficking, then allowed a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in a substituted sentence of 52 months' imprisonment.
29 Dec 2014
The magistrate rightly concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking based on multiple drug types stored with packaging paraphernalia, electronic scale and substantial cash; the magistrate correctly applied tariff guidance and an individual approach to impose a 20‑month sentence which was not manifestly excessive, and the High Court dismissed the appeal on both conviction and sentence.
28 Jul 2011
Applicant was a professional serial burglar who participated in an unprecedented, carefully planned, internationally executed burglary conspiracy involving sophisticated tools and very high-value property; these aggravating factors (including previous convictions) justified raising the appropriate starting points for both the 2003 burglary and the Japan conspiracy, applying a one-third guilty-plea discount to those higher starting points, and ordering partially consecutive service to reflect totality; accordingly the Court increased sentences to reflect seriousness resulting in an overall ter…
5 Jan 2011
The detention between 27 August and 22 September 2010 could not be credited because it predated and was unrelated to the offence committed on 5 October 2010; the 15‑month sentence was the appropriate tariff for a first offence on a plea of guilty and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
16 Jan 2007
Given the very large quantity of ketamine (4.19 kg), the applicable tariff and the precedential starting points (notably HKSAR v Siu Wai Kam), and the applicant's election to plead not guilty (thus foregoing the guilty plea discount), the 13 year sentence was not manifestly excessive and the leave application must be dismissed.
30 Sept 2004
Leave to appeal was granted because the sentencing judge's decision to add two years and four months for bringing in an assistant, resulting in a total five-year sentence when the principal offence attracted two years and eight months, raised a substantive question as to excessiveness that merits determination by a full court.