4 Feb 2016
The Court refused to certify any of the four questions because none raised points of law of great and general importance: the sentencing approach applied by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal was lawful and properly focused on overall culpability; alleged errors were either misreadings of authority or complaints about the weight given to factors rather than legal principle.
14 Jul 2009
The application for a certificate under s32(2) is dismissed because the applicant's complaint was essentially that no discount was given (not that the principle's existence was in doubt) and the point was not advanced in the review submissions, making it inappropriate to grant the certificate.
3 Nov 2004
The court declined to grant a certificate because the proposed questions did not satisfy the statutory threshold under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance as points of great and general importance warranting certification.
23 Jul 2004
The applications were refused because they relied on case-specific evidential foundations and were therefore mistakenly brought before this court; claims of substantial and grave injustice should be made directly to the Court of Final Appeal, so certification under s32(2) was declined.
9 May 2000
The application for certification was refused because the applicant relied solely on factual matters that do not raise a point of law of great and general importance and did not establish that a substantial and grave injustice had been done.
17 Jun 1999
The Court refused certification because the formulated point did not disclose a point of law of great and general importance as required by s32(2), and accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was not granted.