16 Jan 2026
Because the magistrate lawfully and properly procured and relied on pre‑sentence reports showing the applicant was unsuitable for alternative disposals and that a training centre was the appropriate option under s109A(1) CPO for a 17‑year‑old, the sentencing decision was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Oct 2024
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the training centre order because the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor legally erroneous given the seriousness of handling proceeds from a phone‑scam targeting an elderly victim, the appellant's repeated reoffending (including offences while on bail and disciplinary breaches in custody), lack of remorse, and the greater rehabilitative utility of a longer training centre order for this juvenile offender.
2 Jun 2023
The court held the riot was grave in scale and violence, requiring deterrent custodial sentences informed by group conduct and prior authorities; possession of zip-ties and a laser constituted aggravating factors, increasing the sentence starting point; D1, being 19 (16 at the time) with a positive training-centre report and no leadership role, should be detained in a training centre; D2, D6 and D10 received custodial sentences with specified starting points and modest discounts for age, conduct on bail and cooperation; sentences for additional possession offences run concurrently.
21 Jun 2019
No reasonable evidence supported a self‑defence direction for D4 so the conviction stood; for D1 the sentencing judge properly applied guidelines, discounted six months for youth plus other reductions, and the aggregate 51‑month sentence was not excessive—leave refused and appeals dismissed.
24 Aug 2017
The judge correctly concluded that imprisonment was the only appropriate method of dealing with the applicant for trafficking 9g of cocaine, applied the Lau Tak Ming starting point (just over 4 years 8 months), reduced it modestly for youth to 4 years 6 months, and applied a full one‑third discount for the guilty plea to reach 3 years' imprisonment; there was no arguable error in failing to impose a Training Centre order or in the sentencing arithmetic, so the application for leave to appeal was properly refused.
3 Sept 2014
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed and s.8(9) Juvenile Offenders Ordinance applied because the offence, while criminal, was not of the worst category, the offender was a young teenager with Asperger's Syndrome and no previous convictions, and rehabilitative supervision via a care and protection order with specified requirements better served the interests of the appellant and society than recording a conviction and imposing probation.
20 Oct 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge gave adequate directions on joint enterprise and intention and there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; the non-direction on unreliable identification was immaterial on the facts; and the sentences for the juvenile offenders were within the proper exercise of judicial discretion with no exceptional grounds for appellate intervention.
8 Aug 2002
Given the appellant's age, serious and repeated offending, unsuitability for probation or community service and prior imprisonment which had little rehabilitative effect, committal to Training Centre was a proper and proportionate sentence; the appeal is dismissed.
12 Aug 1999
The judge did not err in principle in ordering detention in a training centre because the comprehensive reports and the appellant's poor record justified a longer, reformative, progress-linked detention; the Commissioner's unsuitability view was a factor but did not outweigh the judge's assessment and experience of the material.
20 May 1997
The convictions were quashed because the prosecution relied on an affirmation that did not comply with section 9 of the Copyright Ordinance, leaving the essential element of subsisting copyright unproven; accordingly the convictions could not stand and, given the appellants' ages and period of detention, a retrial was refused.