18 Nov 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review must be refused where the applicant fails to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground and where the subject matter is a prosecutorial decision that is only reviewable on narrow constitutional grounds under Article 63 Basic Law which were not alleged.
28 Jul 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable public law error or Wednesbury irrationality: the Director considered the materials and lawfully exercised his wide discretion in finding no exceptional humanitarian grounds to justify residence outside the dependant policy.
20 Oct 2022
The Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim because the new material was unverified hearsay and amounted to the same or similar facts already considered, so there was no significant change or realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown and the factual conclusions were not irrational; an RPO was justified to prevent further abuse of process and was made on specified terms for five years.
2 Nov 2018
The magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's mitigation as not credible in light of inconsistencies with the background report and the appellant's own statements; those rejected mitigations did not constitute sufficiently strong humanitarian grounds and therefore there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.
24 Nov 2017
Although the Magistrate applied the correct tariffs and was justified in declining suspension initially, the detailed second Social Welfare Report established wholly exceptional humanitarian circumstances — the wife's moderate depressive episode, fainting and other medical conditions and the children's vulnerability — which, together with the appellant's plea and remorse, warranted mercy; the Court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence to 4 months imprisonment to permit immediate release.
7 Oct 2015
The applicant failed to discharge the burden of credible evidence that his 2009 notice of abandonment was not a deliberate and informed decision; therefore the abandonment is not a nullity, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to revive the abandoned appeal, and the application to treat the abandonment as a nullity is dismissed.
18 Jun 2015
Given the appellant's 26 prior convictions (22 for theft) and recent custodial sentences, a deterrent custodial sentence was warranted; although the magistrate did not state an explicit starting point, the 9 month sentence was within the appropriate range for a repeat shoplifter and was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal against sentence fails.
2 Feb 2015
The court found no error of law or fact, no unfairness and no perversity or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Director's decision and concluded the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the court exercised its discretion and refused to extend time to appeal.
23 Dec 2011
The magistrate correctly applied the relevant sentencing authorities for both offences and the totality principle in ordering part-consecutive imprisonment; the appellant's humanitarian grounds did not justify reducing the sentence, therefore the sentences were affirmed.
11 Nov 2010
The Magistrate did not err: the 21 month starting point was appropriate, a one month deduction for administrative custody was correctly applied, and absence of strong humanitarian grounds meant no further reduction was warranted; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the sentence confirmed.