10 Apr 2025
法庭接納控方第三證人的辨認為可靠，裁定被告於2017年12月21日以冒充控方第一證人的方式詐騙並獲利，依據涉款HK$1,600,230參照吳國榮案以3年為欺詐罪量刑起點，認為無減刑因素判處3年監禁；對未按指定歸押罪以3個月為起點，扣除三分之一認罪減刑後為2個月；兩項刑期分期（連續）執行，合計3年2個月。
19 Feb 2025
Apply the established guideline of 32 months for trafficking 5.83g cocaine (within ≤10g band), add 2 months for failure to surrender, reduce total by 20% only because the guilty plea was not timely, order part of the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence already being served (28 months concurrent), resulting in an aggregate custodial term of 35 months; forfeit the surety paid by defendant and guarantor.
29 Oct 2024
The court applied established sentencing starting points for triad membership, assault and arson based on precedents; reduced each starting point by one‑third for timely guilty pleas; then applied bespoke further reductions or suspension where significant prosecutorial delay and individual mitigation justified it. As a result D2, D3 and D6 received non‑custodial suspended sentences (36 months) reflecting delay plus mitigation; D4 received immediate custody for arson and a partial consecutive term for the triad offence totalling 21 months and was ordered to pay HKD5000; D11 received an aggrega…
29 Oct 2024
The court fixed objective starting points for each offence (triad conduct 15 or 9 months depending on role; assault 9 months; arson 36 months; failure to surrender 3 months), applied a one‑third reduction for timely guilty pleas, allowed mitigation for significant prosecutorial delay by reducing terms or suspending sentences as appropriate, and applied the totality principle to order partial concurrency resulting in final immediate custodial terms for D4 and aggregate suspended or immediate sentences for others; compensation and administrative handling of D11's detention were ordered accordin…
29 Oct 2024
Court identified baseline sentences for each offence (triad membership 15 or 9 months depending on role; assault causing actual bodily harm 9 months; arson 36 months; failure to surrender 3 months), applied a one‑third reduction for timely guilty pleas, and then further adjusted sentences to reflect proven prosecutorial delay and individual mitigation. For less culpable participants and where delay and rehabilitation justified it, custodial terms were suspended; for serious arson the custodial element was maintained with partial concurrent execution and a compensation order imposed.
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。
21 Feb 2024
The court held the judge properly reduced the guilty plea discount to 25% because the applicant's absconding produced consequences (late plea, delay, wasted resources and need for rearrest) that justify a reduced discount and do not amount to double punishment; additionally the wounding was an aggravated gang attack warranting a starting point near the top of the scale and consecutive sentences were properly imposed, so the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
11 Feb 2022
The Court of First Instance allowed the appeal in relation to Offence 1, holding the Magistrate's 12‑month sentence was excessive given the forged identity card's poor quality, the spontaneous nature of the act under stress about his children, and insufficient consideration of humanitarian family circumstances; the appropriate starting point for Offence 1 was 6 months, reducing the total sentence from 18 to 12 months.
17 Jun 2021
The judge did not err in adopting the starting point and in applying a 25% discount for a guilty plea delayed by absconding and a modest discount for limited self-consumption; however, the issue whether a cross‑border "international element" enhancement improperly double counts the statutory offence of importing warrants appellate consideration, and leave to appeal is granted limited to that point.
8 Jul 2020
Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant had served only about 5 months of an aggregate 17-month sentence and, even on the most favourable view, that period was insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offences; therefore there was no sufficient basis to grant bail pending appeal.