20 Oct 2025
Leave was granted because Ground 2 (that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to infer the applicant agreed to the conspiracy) was reasonably arguable and the four‑month delay in seeking leave was reasonably explained by the applicant's youth and case complexity; leave to appeal sentence was granted because those grounds were reasonably arguable.
13 May 2016
Leave to appeal refused because the sentencing judge’s choice of starting points, application of plea discounts and statutory enhancement, and imposition of a partly consecutive overall sentence were within the proper ambit of judicial discretion given aggravating features (recruitment from Mainland to commit offences, elder victims, cross-border element, HK$80,000 loss and prevalence of the scam) and therefore not manifestly excessive.
9 Jan 2015
The Court held that the judge was entitled to a 4‑year starting point for the first charge given the significant sum ($230,000), the applicant’s knowledge that the funds came from telephone deception, recruitment from the Mainland and targeting elderly victims, but erred in applying the same 4‑year starting point to Charge 2 where the sum was materially lower ($17,700). The appropriate starting point for Charge 2 is 3 years, with a one‑third discount for guilty plea and a one‑third statutory enhancement, producing a 32‑month sentence for Charge 2. The consecutive element was reduced from 10 t…