27 Aug 2004
The Court held that the Magistrate's starting point for Charge 1 exceeded the statutory maximum that could be imposed; substituting a lawful sentence, the Court reduced Charge 1 to 16 months imprisonment, affirmed the 4 months sentence on Charge 2 and the order that the sentences run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate of 20 months imprisonment.
27 Feb 1981
The Court allowed the Attorney General's application for review, held that the magistrate was wrong in principle to suspend heavy consecutive sentences for triad‑related offences solely because of the respondent's wife's pregnancy, and substituted concurrent immediate custodial sentences of four months' imprisonment on each of the four charges.
14 Sept 1973
The magistrate exceeded the statutory maximum under Summary Offences Ordinance s.17 by imposing 12 months; the correct maximum is three months, therefore the 12 month sentence is unlawful and must be reduced to three months to run consecutively to the one month theft sentence.
23 Feb 1973
The judge's prior reductions of sentence were erroneous because he had mistaken the jurisdictional limits of special magistrates under s.91 for those of permanent magistrates under s.92; the error is acknowledged and corrected, with no material prejudice to the appellants beyond the already effected outcomes.