18 Aug 2017
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the applicant advanced no reasonable arguable grounds and the sentence of 32 months fell within the permissible sentencing range when the appropriate starting point and the guilty plea discount were applied.
20 Mar 2014
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant was substantially out of time and her explanation for the delay was insufficient; the matters relied on did not assist her case.
15 Mar 2011
Given the quantity of heroin (exceeding 1kg) and the international element, a starting point of 25 years was not manifestly excessive; the judge properly applied a one-third reduction for the guilty plea; there was no material assistance to authorities and no evidence the applicant's medical condition could not be treated in custody, therefore no basis to interfere with the sentence; leave to appeal dismissed.
15 Oct 2010
For trafficking 287.26g of heroin the correct starting point is 13 years; after applying a one-third discount for a guilty plea the sentence of 8 years 8 months was appropriate; personal circumstances and alleged coercion did not justify interference with the sentence, so leave to appeal was dismissed.
16 May 2006
The sentencing judge applied established precedents and guidelines to set starting points for the drug offences, correctly applied a one‑third discount for guilty pleas and the resulting sentences and overall term were not manifestly excessive; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
8 Mar 2006
The sentencing judge was entitled to enhance the starting point beyond the top of the Lau Tak-ming suggested band because the appellant's very serious and repeated narcotics convictions aggravated the offence and warranted greater deterrence; midazolam attracted no additional sentence; accordingly the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the sentence upheld.
9 Nov 2005
The police telephone enquiry did not amount to entrapment; the magistrate validly enhanced the starting point for sentencing given the appellant's significant prior convictions and applicable heroin trafficking guidelines, and the reduction for the guilty plea produced a 20-month sentence which was not excessive, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
13 Sept 2002
The Court held that the trial judge misapplied the appropriate starting point for the first count and did not accurately reflect the one‑third plea discount on the second count; the sentences imposed were set aside and substituted with corrected terms (4 years for the first count and 9 years 4 months for the second), to run concurrently, producing an effective sentence of 9 years 4 months imprisonment.
14 Dec 2001
The Lau Tak Ming tariffs are primarily dictated by the weight of drugs; the offender's role (including being a courier) is relevant to placement within a tariff band but does not justify a sentence below the tariff band, and consequently the sentences imposed in these cases were correct and not manifestly excessive.
14 Jul 1998
The Court dismissed the appeal: the conviction was safe because the judge properly assessed credibility and drew permissible inferences from the police evidence; the seven year sentence was appropriate under applicable guidelines; activation of the two year suspended sentence under s109C was lawful and the District Court's seven year limit on sentences imposed by it does not prevent activation of a previously imposed suspended sentence, so the total nine year aggregate was permissible.