14 Nov 2022
The Court refused to extend time because the applicant failed to adequately explain the delay and, critically, the intended appeal had no prospect of success as it did not raise any question of great and general public importance and the grounds advanced were not viable; therefore extension would be futile under the court’s discretionary power pursuant to HKCFAO ss24 and 22(1)(b).
14 Jul 2022
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant was out of time by 16 days, failed to demonstrate good and sufficient grounds for an extension under section 24(5) HKCFAO, and failed to identify any arguable error or any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, so leave to appeal was refused.
28 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; allegations without particulars were insufficient to justify leave.
2 Mar 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any issue of general or public importance or any other reason under s22(1)(b) to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal, and he did not demonstrate any arguable error in the impugned findings (including the finding that the torture claim was fabricated).
24 Jul 1997
Leave to appeal out of time was granted and, applying sentencing principles to the facts (notably the large quantity of cocaine), the Court held the sentences were not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive but ordered that the sentences run concurrently, reducing total custody to 21 years imprisonment.
8 Mar 1996
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because no fresh grounds or demonstration of miscarriage of justice was shown; the trial was fair and the judge's summing-up was adequate, and the alleged language difficulty had been considered at trial.