21 May 1991
The appeals were allowed in part because the aggregate total sentence was excessive; the Court reduced the sentences on all theft charges to three months while upholding the orders as to concurrency, consecutivity and activation of suspended sentences, resulting in revised total terms of 20 months for Siu and 18 months for Tang.
21 May 1991
The court allowed the appeals on the ground that the aggregate sentences produced by the magistrates were excessive in totality for the type and value of the thefts; accordingly all theft sentences were reduced to three months each while concurrent/consecutive arrangements and activation of suspended sentences were left intact, producing revised totals of 20 months for Siu and 18 months for Tang.
21 Jun 1990
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application because section 83H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance excludes cases where the High Court is dealing with the offender while exercising jurisdiction on appeal from a magistrate; therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
18 Jun 1987
The court held that mixing immediate custodial sentences with suspended custodial sentences in the circumstances produced an excessive cumulative sentence; the suspended sentence for criminal damage should have been treated as concurrent with the immediate custodial sentence from 14 March 1986 and the magistrate lawfully had power to impose a fine together with imprisonment for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under ss.39 and 58 read with the proviso to s.92; applying the totality principle the aggregate sentence of 18 months was excessive and was reduced to 12 months.