7 Jan 1997
The Court held the sentences were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive; disparity with co-defendants did not justify interference and the totality principle and guilty plea credit were appropriately applied, so the appeals were dismissed.
19 Oct 1995
The Court held the trial judge properly considered the reports and the possibility of a training centre order and reasonably rejected it as inappropriate for a 20‑year‑old after trial trafficking a large quantity of heroin; the judge reduced the sentence below the Lau Tak‑ming guideline to reflect youth and a clear record, and therefore the sentence was not wrong in principle and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
15 Sept 1988
Because no actual restitution had been made at the time of sentencing and the offences constituted a deliberate, prolonged scheme to defraud, the trial judge did not err in his assessment of mitigation or in the length of the custodial sentence; subsequent partial restitution and pregnancy do not justify interference with a sentence that the court considered already merciful.
5 Sept 1986
The Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the aggregate sentence from 7 years to 5 years because, although the appellant intended injury, he did not foresee the very serious consequence (blindness) and his youth and correctional prospects warranted mitigation; reduction effected by lowering the attempted robbery term to 3 years and the wounding term to 2 years, to run consecutively.
12 Aug 1986
The Court held that although the jury found no intent to cause death, the deliberate triad‑related attack causing fatal injury justified substantial custody but the original sentences were excessive; balancing aggravation (triad/drugs, violence) and mitigation (youth, jury finding) warranted reducing each sentence from 8 years 6 months to 6 years imprisonment.