21 Jan 2026
The appeal was dismissed because, on the correct factual chronology, the appellant committed offences during a relevant police bail period such that the trial judge lawfully ordered the sentences to run consecutively with the other money‑laundering sentence; any misstatement of chronology by defence counsel did not render the sentencing decision legally wrong or manifestly excessive.
26 Nov 2025
Appellate court found the original sentencing starting points were excessive given the totality of evidence and applicable sentencing methodology; it revised the starting points (count 1 to 12 months, count 2 to 15 months), applied the appropriate reductions for plea and limited mitigation for self‑surrender and adjusted for repeat offending, ordered counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently (operative concurrent term 8 months) with partial concurrency for counts 3 and 4, and reduced the aggregate sentence from 13 months to 10 months while maintaining disqualification periods and the fine.
3 Jun 2025
Leave to appeal was granted limitedly: the court found grounds challenging overall excessiveness (ground 2) and the 8‑month bail enhancement (ground 3) were reasonably arguable and merited appeal; grounds asserting wholly concurrent sentences and discounts for consumption or personal mitigation (grounds 1,4,5) were not reasonably arguable and were refused.
23 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because there is a legitimate and arguable basis that the sentencing judge erred: the starting point adopted for Counts 1 and 3 may have been manifestly excessive and the imposition of a consecutive element for Count 2 may have failed to account adequately for overlapping criminality; consequently the appeal merits full hearing and is to be heard together with Au Chun Wah.
3 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the starting point and resulting sentence for the drug driving count was manifestly excessive and that the totality of the overall sentence may be excessive; the factual finding that the consumed drug was not referable to the trafficked drug supported treating the offences as separate but did not preclude review of totality.
14 Mar 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the High Court concluded the sentencing judge adopted proper starting points for both offences, reasonably applied the combined approach and enhancements for aggravating features (offending while on bail, recent similar convictions, variety of drugs), and correctly applied the plea discount and totality principle; therefore the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
20 Dec 2024
The court set aside the detoxification centre order because it is impermissible to impose such an order on a person already serving a sentence; given the small quantity (0.17g mixture) and absence of specification of narcotic weight the appropriate sentencing starting point is at the low end (6 weeks reduced to 4 weeks), and on the particular facts including prior detention in a detox centre the court substituted a fine of HKD 3,000.
6 Dec 2024
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable the 14 year global sentence (reflecting a notional starting point of about 21 years) was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle given the small scale of the manufacturing operation, the applicant's peripheral role and the need for caution in imposing consecutive elements where trafficking and manufacturing overlap, thereby justifying appellate scrutiny.
29 Oct 2024
法庭根據各罪之既定量刑基準，並綜合考慮罪行性質、被告在犯罪中的角色、使用武器及傷勢、被告的認罪及個人背景，及案件存在多年檢控延誤等減刑因素，故對部分被告減低量刑基準並在若干個案下改為緩刑或下調刑期；縱火罪由於公共利益重大但案情非最嚴重類別，故採取36個月為基準再減至18個月，並就各被告分別確定並下達即時或緩刑及賠償命令。
28 May 2024
The High Court held the trial judge did not err in principle or exercise of discretion: the sentencing starting points, limited plea discount after a Newton hearing, recognition of aggravating factors (young victim, breach of trust, severity of injuries) and the ordering of partial concurrency were within lawful range; therefore the sentences (15 months and 6 months with partial concurrency totaling 20 months immediate imprisonment) were affirmed and the appeal dismissed.