15 Oct 2025
Given the amount processed (approximately HK$2.23 million), the frequency of transactions and the appellant's facilitation role, a custodial starting point of 25 months was appropriate; a 25% discount for a guilty plea entered on the first day reduced the sentence to 20 months which is not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
11 Jul 2019
The Court allowed the sentence‑review application: the offences were more serious than ordinary 'failure to return' theft because the stolen genuine credit card was used four times in quick succession to purchase high‑value items; deterrence required immediate custody; the original imposition of a 20‑month sentence suspended for two years was therefore inappropriate. The Court substituted an immediate custodial sentence of 15 months by adjusting the concurrency of counts so that counts 2–5 receive 12 months concurrent and count 1's six months is partly concurrent, producing a total effective…
23 Sept 2015
Where a company repeatedly exported controlled goods without licences over an extended period due to internal failures, a substantial fine proportionate to the goods' value is justified; voluntary disclosure and first offence status are mitigating but do not require parity with other cases and the sentencing court's exercise of discretion was not excessive here.
27 Apr 2010
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentence of 16 years (arrived at by a 24-year starting point with a full one-third discount) was consistent with established Hong Kong sentencing guidelines for the quantity of heroin involved (1,296.09g), and the applicant's personal circumstances, health and foreign status did not render the sentence manifestly excessive.
21 Aug 2007
There was no rational distinction between the appellant and Lara Rath: both acted in good faith, there was no financial loss and no extra benefit to the appellant; mitigating features (guilty plea, cooperation, absence of loss) warranted the same category of sentence as Rath; therefore the fine was set aside and a conditional discharge imposed.
28 Aug 2000
The appeal court held that although the magistrate was not wrong to discount a bare undertaking to give evidence, new material (assistance given to prosecution, further remorse, family and health impact) warranted further reduction of sentence; however the offence was not a technical breach and deterrence predominated so suspension was not appropriate; sentences reduced from six to three months concurrent on each charge.
23 Oct 1997
Leave to appeal against sentence out of time is refused because the applicant's sole reason for delay (advice from counsel) is insufficient and the material before the court does not show proper grounds to challenge the sentence; the sentencing tariff for possession/trafficking of 31.60 grams of heroin indicates that a sentence in excess of five years would be appropriate.
12 May 1995
The Court held that the sentencing judge did not err in principle and the sentence of two years and nine months was not excessive, so the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
2 Aug 1994
The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentences were not excessive given the gravity of the deception, breach of trust, total sums obtained ($216,100), the applicant's devious conduct and absence of remorse; the consecutive one‑year sentence on count 7 was justified by the different victim and an eleven‑month gap; pregnancy, youth, prior good character and delay did not warrant reduction as delay was largely attributable to the applicant.
30 May 1980
The two year sentence was proportionate to the offence given the substantial quantity and market value of the drug and relevant precedent; the appellant's status as a foreign national, family circumstances and health complaints did not amount to sufficient mitigation to warrant interference with the sentence, therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed.