4 Apr 2018
The reformatory order was a lawful and appropriate sentence because the sentencing judge properly considered the seriousness of the assault, the appellant's youth and extensive prior record, and relied on contemporaneous reports that alternatives (reformative or detention orders) were unsuitable; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and complied with the principles in Wong Chun Cheong.
15 Aug 2006
The judge's direction that 'substantial' impairment required a finding in 'popular everyday terms' that the accused was 'partially insane' or 'on the borderline of insanity' was a material misdirection; such a popular-language test unduly narrows the statutory concept of diminished responsibility and should not be given. The misdirection warranted allowing the appeal, quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.
11 Aug 1995
The Court held that the applicant's conduct was extremely dangerous and could have caused loss of life; having considered youth and pleas, the aggregate sentence of five years (four years plus a concurrent portion of three years) was not excessive and must be upheld.
13 Aug 1991
The court allowed the appeal in part and suspended the 12 month sentence for 13 months because, despite the offence's seriousness and prior conviction, the appellant's youth, favourable probation report and rehabilitation prospects justified a suspended sentence whereas probation supervision was impractical given his living circumstances.
30 Mar 1979
Because the appellant was under 18 at the time of the murder, the death sentence was inappropriate and was set aside and replaced by an order that he be detained in safe custody until Her Majesty's pleasure is known under section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
28 Mar 1973
The court held the two year sentence was appropriate because the appellant committed armed robbery with threatened violence and had prior convictions including breaches of probation and a bond; those aggravating factors justified upholding the sentence and the appeal was dismissed.
9 Sept 1972
The court adopts a stringent test under s.81A: it will only intervene where the sentence is so manifestly inadequate or excessive that it induces a sense of shock or outrage and no judge properly exercising discretion could have imposed it; applying that test to the facts (young first offender, voluntary confession, assistance, probation and prison/commissioner reports), the magistrate's decision to impose 18 months probation was not manifestly inadequate and the review application is dismissed.