30 Jan 2003
The Court held that being caught red‑handed is not a valid reason to deny the normal one‑third discount for a guilty plea; it set aside the sentence on Count 6, substituted a term of four years eight months, and adjusted the total sentence to ten years imprisonment.
16 Jul 1998
The court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge correctly applied the law on admissibility, his credibility findings could not be undermined, the evidence sufficed to convict for robbery, and the five-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the aggravating features and applicable precedent (Mo Kwong Sang).
29 May 1987
The Court held the original concurrent sentencing was manifestly inadequate because the five offences were not a single transaction; some sentences should run consecutively. Applying precedent and totality the appropriate aggregate would have been 12 years but, on review, the Court varied the sentences so that Count 2 commences 4 years after Count 1, producing an overall effective sentence of 10 years.
9 Oct 1984
The four year robbery sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of aggravating factors (use of pepper causing temporary blindness and assault by both perpetrators). Established sentencing practice places such offending in an eight to nine year range; allowance for a guilty plea reduces the term. On review, applying these principles and the court's practice, the appropriate sentence for the robbery is seven years, to run concurrently with the existing 18 month sentence for possession of an imitation firearm.
25 Jan 1984
The Court reduced the sentence from five years to four years because the sentencing judge ought to have given additional mitigation weight to the lack of premeditation, the prior seizure of the applicant's goods by police, and the non-standard nature of the implement used, notwithstanding that the guilty plea warranted only a small reduction.