26 Sept 2012
The Court refused leave to appeal because the judge was entitled to treat the offences as committed in a crowded hawker/shopping area and to have regard to the applicant's extensive and recent record; given the separate timings of the offences and the prior convictions, the aggregate sentence of 27 months was not manifestly excessive.
21 Oct 2011
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err in principle and the sentence for Count 4 (two years six months) was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's knowledge, benefit received and prolonged use of the premises for trafficking; appellate intervention is unwarranted absent manifest excess.
3 Oct 2008
Given the quantity of heroin, the international nature of the trafficking and established authorities supporting a 25-year starting point, the application of a one-third discount producing a sentence of 16 years 8 months was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was dismissed.
13 Jan 1998
Given the magnitude of the conspiracy and the net proceeds (HK$74 million) the 9‑year starting point was not manifestly excessive; the trial judge correctly weighed roles and mitigation, properly discounted credit for the applicant's absconding and lack of meaningful assistance; there was no error of principle and the application to appeal the sentence was dismissed.
16 May 1996
The Court held the aggregate sentence of about 13 years was not manifestly excessive but that the orders should be specified and clarified; accordingly the appeals were allowed in part to record precise concurrent and consecutive ordering so the total sentence from 27 January 1993 is 13 years.
8 Mar 1994
The Court held the sentence of two years six months on the first count was not manifestly excessive and, having applied the totality principle, the aggregate sentence of two years ten months was appropriate; consequently the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
20 Dec 1991
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge applied the totality principle and the overall sentence of two years six months for eight offences, including possession of a forged passport, was not manifestly excessive; therefore no appellate interference was warranted.