17 Jun 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly applied the So Man King sentencing guideline, selected an appropriate starting point and applied the one-third guilty plea discount; the appellant's stated motives and family circumstances did not constitute exceptional mitigation warranting a reduced sentence.
9 Dec 2020
The Court allowed the appeal, corrected the one‑third discount calculation and resentenced the appellant. It adopted the starting point of 21 years 6 months, enhanced by 1 year 9 months for the international element to 23 years 3 months, allowed a 2 month reduction for participation in the anti‑drug campaign to 23 years 1 month, and then applied a one‑third discount for the timely guilty plea to reach a sentence of 15 years 4 months imprisonment. The appellant's personal circumstances did not justify further mitigation.
23 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal refused because the sentencing judge lawfully applied the Lau Tak Ming heroin tariff to 4.67g, properly discounted for the guilty plea and took relevant mitigation into account, resulting in a sentence within judicial discretion.
26 Oct 2018
The court fixed sentences based on individual culpability and role: most respondents received short custodial sentences suspended (commonly one month or six weeks) combined with fines varying by role and conviction status; one respondent with extensive, active involvement received immediate imprisonment of 4 months. Personal circumstances and absence of violence were mitigating; costs were awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis with a certificate for three counsel.
29 Mar 2006
The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion by imposing a six month disqualification: the appellant's breath alcohol level was significantly above the statutory limit and contributed to the collision, the magistrate considered the appellant's mitigation but the need for deterrence and public protection justified the disqualification, and there was no basis for appellate intervention; appeal dismissed.
24 Jun 2003
The application for extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence is refused because the applicant offered no acceptable explanation for the 12‑month delay and no valid ground of appeal; the sentence of 8 years was within the correct guideline range, the one‑third discount for guilty plea was applied, and the information supplied was too vague and produced no actionable results to justify further reduction.
22 May 2003
Although the conviction and the need for immediate imprisonment were justified by the use of a metal bar and the injuries caused, the court accepted substantial mitigation (family dependence, illness of relatives, remorse, lack of prior imprisonment and provocation) and therefore reduced the six-month sentence to three months to permit immediate release as an act of mercy.
28 Mar 2003
The appeal was allowed and the 3-month custodial sentence was substituted with a community service order because, judged on the facts before the High Court (substantial mitigation including caregiving responsibilities, victim forgiveness, time already spent in custody and provision of separate housing for the victim), imprisonment was disproportionate; deterrence did not outweigh the mitigation.
29 Aug 2002
The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate's sentencing was within legal principles: consecutive terms were justified by authority and the appellant's repeated unlawful entry and convictions; the appellant's personal circumstances did not merit reduction of the overall 32 month sentence.
23 Jun 1999
The Magistrate lawfully and properly considered relevant mitigation and guidance from R. v. Shoult, treated the appellant's prior conviction and commission of the offence while on bail as significant aggravating factors given the high breath alcohol reading, and reasonably concluded that an immediate two‑month custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive; loss of employment and pension was insufficient to reduce the custodial element.