28 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable basis that the revised guidelines would produce a significant reduction; any arithmetic difference would be marginal, and the sustained, sizable manufacturing operation rendered the sentence not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
8 Apr 2026
The judge's summing‑up was fair, comprehensive and legally correct on the key issues (possession, knowledge, burden and the caution to be applied to PW1); no misdirection or unfair imbalance occurred that could have caused a miscarriage of justice, and the conviction stands as the jury could properly convict on the evidence if they accepted PW1.
23 Jan 2026
Leave to appeal out of time refused because the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for a 4.5 year delay and the revised guidelines would not realistically produce a lower sentence given his role as an international courier, the quantity and value of the drugs, and the international element; any marginal difference in starting points does not justify out of time leave and the Court will not tinker with sentences.
29 Aug 2025
The judge's reply to the jury introduced and permitted conviction on a factual and legal basis that was not the prosecution's pleaded basis (importation), thereby materially widening the basis for conviction without appropriate direction; this deprived defendants of a fair trial and made the convictions unsafe, requiring that the convictions and sentences be quashed and a retrial ordered in the interests of justice under Cap.221 s83E(1).
8 Jul 2025
The court held that, on the facts and the summing-up as a whole, the judge's directions were adequate and non‑prejudicial; only the applicant's Amended Ground 1 (that the jury's use of 'assume' could have been wrongly understood to permit conviction without the required standard) was reasonably arguable and granted leave to appeal on that ground alone; the other conviction grounds were refused and the convictions stand; the applicant was granted leave and an appeal aid certificate to appeal sentence in light of the new Huang guidelines but the sentence imposed below remains in place pending a…
5 Jun 2025
Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the Judge's summing-up, when read as a whole, fairly presented the defence including the alleged set-up by the wanted person and did not amount to misdirection or descent into the arena; however leave to appeal against sentence was granted because subsequent authorities (Huang Ruifang (No. 3)) changed the appropriate starting point for offences of this quantity of narcotics, potentially reducing the sentence.
3 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the starting point and resulting sentence for the drug driving count was manifestly excessive and that the totality of the overall sentence may be excessive; the factual finding that the consumed drug was not referable to the trafficked drug supported treating the offences as separate but did not preclude review of totality.
20 Feb 2025
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the judge had correctly applied sentencing guidelines: the applicant and co-defendant were properly classified as storekeepers, starting points and a justified enhancement for coming to Hong Kong were correctly applied, and the reductions for cooperation and guilty plea were lawfully calculated; the applicant's comparative disparity complaint lacked factual and legal foundation.
25 Oct 2024
The jury were properly directed that the central issue was knowledge and that inconsistencies about the appellant's finances were one of many circumstantial matters; a full lies direction was not required and the conviction was safe. Sentencing required allowance for exceptional mitigation (grooming, vulnerability and substantial cooperation in a prolonged controlled delivery) resulting in reduction of the notional starting point to produce a final term of 22 years' imprisonment.
16 Jul 2024
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the judge correctly applied the established sentencing guidelines and principles: the notional starting point properly reflected the applicant's role and culpability, the one-third guilty plea reduction and the 'no harm' discount were within judicial discretion and produced a final global sentence that was not manifestly excessive.