18 Dec 2014
The public interest in ensuring that the perpetrator of a serious violent offence is brought to justice outweighed the appellant's private prejudice from further proceedings, notwithstanding time served and some prosecutorial failings; accordingly a retrial was ordered after the conviction was quashed.
22 Sept 2011
Although the judge's presentation could have been improved, he had correctly fixed starting points and applied guilty plea discounts so no material sentencing error occurred; however because the magistrates' sentences arose from the same undercover operation some overlap should have been recognised and the cumulative term reduced by ordering six months of the six-year term to run concurrently with the nine-month magistrates' term, producing an aggregate of six years three months; appeal allowed in part and sentence substituted accordingly.
8 Jul 2005
The magistrate thoroughly and properly resolved the central issue of witness credibility; trial counsel gave balanced, informed advice with written instructions and waivers so the appellants' informed decision not to give evidence did not amount to unfairness or ineffective assistance; the convictions and six month sentences were within permissible range and are upheld.
7 Jul 2001
The Court held the second video-recorded confession was voluntary and admissible despite procedural irregularities; photographic and parade identification evidence was properly admitted and weighed by the jury; prosecution was entitled to cross-examine on prior convictions because the defence attack on police credibility forfeited the s54(1)(f) protection; the summing up was fair and no lurking doubt made convictions unsafe, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
4 Apr 2001
The Court held that the 12-year starting point for manslaughter was not manifestly excessive and an eight-year sentence for manslaughter was appropriate given the organised, premeditated triad attack and the applicant's significant role as lookout; however the concurrent five-year sentences for the unlawful wounding counts exceeded the statutory maximum under s19 Cap.212 and must be quashed and substituted with three-year sentences to run concurrently, leaving the overall effective sentence unchanged.
17 Apr 1997
The court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge had addressed the discrepancies, the applicant failed to show counsel acted with flagrantly incompetent conduct that rendered the conviction unsafe, and the 18-month sentence was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
9 Apr 1997
The original sentences were manifestly inadequate for the combined seriousness of two indecent assaults on schoolgirls and a sustained unlawful wounding; the appropriate starting point for the wounding was 18 months reduced for plea to 12 months; appropriate sentences for the indecent assaults were three months each and should have been consecutive; having considered mitigation and time in custody the court quashed the original sentences and substituted 8 months for the wounding and 2 months for each indecent assault to run consecutively, totaling 12 months.
31 Jul 1996
The Court held the original sentence of 10 months was insufficient given the multiplicity of injuries to a helpless infant and the protracted period of abuse; a higher starting point (about 24 months) was appropriate for the worst band of this offence type, but allowing the usual discount for a guilty plea and a further reduction in view of the original sentence the appropriate sentence was 15 months' imprisonment; accordingly the application was allowed and the sentence increased to 15 months.
31 Jul 1996
Given the gravity of the offence, the negative probation recommendation and statutory sentencing options, the judge's sentence of detention in a training centre was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; the application for leave to appeal is refused.
14 Dec 1995
The trial judge properly exercised his discretion to admit the records of interview after considering voluntariness, properly treated and weighed both inculpatory and exculpatory parts of the mixed statements in accordance with authority, and the totality of the admissible evidence including admissions and agreed factual material supported the convictions for unlawful wounding and affray; there was no material misdirection and leave to appeal is refused.