8 Apr 2019
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the asserted grounds (lack of language assistance, lack of legal representation, and alleged disparity by the Duty Lawyer Service) were not reasonably arguable as bases for judicial review and did not raise questions of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
19 Oct 1995
The court dismissed the judicial review application because disparity of treatment alone does not render a properly reached disciplinary penalty unfair; comparators relied upon were factually dissimilar and their correctness was not established; confidentiality prevented disclosure of further comparators; the Secretary and disciplinary tribunal acted within the range of reasonable administrative discretion and there was no Wednesbury unreasonableness warranting interference.
15 Aug 1990
The Court reaffirmed that unlawful presence is principally a deterrence offence and that the 15‑month guideline remains appropriate for typical cases; mitigation for being 'lulled' into security by prosecutorial policy is limited to those actually in a position to have relied on that policy and not to persons who left after the policy change was publicised; youth and extreme youth/humanitarian factors can justify lower or suspended sentences in appropriate cases; accordingly the Court substituted increased sentences in several reviews and dismissed certain appeals while preserving the practic…