21 Jan 1997
The Court held that the aggregate sentence of three years six months for determined and dishonest transactions to obtain proceeds of false cheques was appropriate, not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, and that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to reduce sentence; therefore the out‑of‑time application was refused.
8 Jun 1988
Six months imprisonment was excessive given plea and restitution so sentence was reduced to four months, but disqualification for two years was lawful and appropriate under s.69(1)(h) of the Road Traffic Ordinance because the taxi was used in committing the offence and to escape, therefore the disqualification could not be limited to taxis and was upheld.
25 Aug 1987
The Court held the sentence was not excessive and refused leave to appeal because the applicant, in a position of trust, committed numerous deceptions over about three years misappropriating HKD 738,771 and an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable; the aggregate three year term was appropriate.
20 Aug 1985
The District Judge had not given sufficient credit for the guilty plea; allowing the appeal the Court reduced the three-year sentence on the first forgery count to two years while leaving the other sentences unchanged, reducing the aggregate term to three years.
29 Apr 1985
The magistrate erred by taking into account a conviction that was recorded after the commission of the present offence and by not affording sufficient credit for the guilty plea; accordingly the appropriate sentence is reduced from 6 months to 3 months imprisonment to be served consecutively to the sentence already being served, while the compensation order remains undisturbed.
11 Jan 1983
Given the Committee of Inquiry's detailed findings supported by witnesses and taped evidence, the respondent's conduct constituted serious professional and criminal misconduct and rendered him wholly unfitted to practise; adequate notice had been given and the Court was entitled to proceed in his absence, therefore his name was struck from the Roll and costs ordered against him.
9 Jul 1976
The appellate court held that for a first offender who committed a small‑scale, deliberate deception motivated by hardship, with attempted restitution and a short period in custody, a total sentence of six months' imprisonment was excessive and should be set aside in favour of a sentence resulting in immediate release (time served).
28 Mar 1973
The court held that the repeated telephone demands for ransom greatly increased the seriousness of the offences; the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion in imposing 18 months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently was proper given the facts and mitigation did not justify interference; appeal dismissed.
23 Mar 1973
The court held that multiple short consecutive sentences for a series of similar deceptive transactions were excessive; an overall sentence should be fixed. Applying that principle, the first appellant's aggregate sentence was excessive and was reduced to an overall 12 months; the second appellant's non-probation sentences were made concurrent with a four-month term while a six-month sentence for breach of probation remained consecutive, producing a net ten-month term.