17 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge was entitled to enhance the starting point for the applicant's extensive and serious criminal record and to characterise the applicant's role and culpability as he did; there were no reasonably arguable grounds that the enhancement or lack of warning rendered the sentence disproportionate or erroneous.
6 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the judge correctly applied established principles: the offender's clear intent to inflict really serious harm, detailed premeditation, carrying multiple knives, targeting the chest with potential fatal consequence and persistence in holding the weapon rendered a 12‑year starting point and resulting 9‑year sentence (after discount) not manifestly excessive; the limited injuries were fortuitous and did not undermine culpability.
23 Dec 2020
The trial sentence of six weeks was manifestly inadequate because the trial judge materially underestimated the overall gravity of the violent illegal assembly and the respondent's contributory role; applying settled precedent the appropriate starting point was 15 months, reduced by one‑third for a guilty plea to 10 months and further adjusted to 9 months to reflect time already served; the Court therefore quashed the original sentence and substituted nine months' imprisonment and ordered re‑arrest to serve the sentence.
15 May 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge's enhancement of the starting point by one year was supported by substantial aggravating factors—particularly the very high value of unrecovered goods, the premeditation and planning (including deception of a locksmith and use of a duplicated key), and the applicant's record—so the resulting sentence after a one-third plea discount was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
30 Nov 2011
The court held the OSCO enhancement under s.27 could not validly be applied because the prosecution relied on a single Schedule 1 act (the theft) and did not establish two or more scheduled offences; accordingly the court set aside the OSCO enhancement, re-assessed aggravating features and fixed appropriate sentences (starting point of four years, reduced for guilty pleas to two years eight months for D1, D3 and D4).
14 Jul 2009
Given the applicant was the instigator and leading figure in prolonged, cruel beatings of a particularly vulnerable victim, and the sentencing judge took into account the retrial and plea offers, the 12-year sentence for manslaughter was proper and not manifestly excessive; therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
22 Apr 2009
The Court held the starting points of three years for each applicant were appropriate, the 50% enhancement under s27(2) was justified given the prevalence and organised nature of street deception, and therefore the sentences imposed (54 months for A1, A2 and A4; 63 months for A3) were not manifestly excessive; appeals dismissed.
13 Jan 2009
Immediate custody was justified given the deliberate sourcing, packaging and use of Nokia's mark indicating a commercial counterfeit enterprise, but the original 12‑month starting point was excessive given the limited quantity and value of goods; on appeal sentences were reduced to 3 months on Charge 1 and 1 month concurrent on Charge 2, resulting in an effective 3‑month term.
10 Jan 2007
The Court increased the sentence because the victim suffered catastrophic, near-vegetative brain damage and the public interest in deterring attacks on police warranted a heavier starting point; the court set a 15 year starting point for the wounding offence, applied a one‑third guilty plea discount to reach 10 years, and ordered the 8‑month possession sentence to run concurrently, concluding the original 6‑year overall sentence was manifestly inadequate.
3 Feb 2000
Appeal allowed in part: sentence reduced from 12 months to 6 months because, although the appellant was lawfully present, he purchased a forged identity card in the Mainland before coming and produced it to the police, which amounts to planning and an aggravating act; applying established principles and sentencing ranges, a six-month term is proportionate.