5 Feb 2025
The judge's chosen starting points, the 3‑month enhancement for offences committed while on police bail, and the application of the totality principle were appropriate and supported by precedent and sentencing considerations; there was no discrepancy between the applicant and co‑accused; the application for leave to appeal sentence is refused.
9 May 2024
Given binding and persuasive appellate authorities establishing a 12-month post-plea baseline for possession of another's identity card and that possession implies illicit purpose, the judge correctly applied that benchmark; the appellant's collateral explanation and personal mitigation did not rebut the established sentencing principle and were insufficient to justify a non-custodial or reduced sentence, so the 12-month imprisonment was appropriate and is upheld.
17 Oct 2023
The Court upheld the conviction for theft because the prosecution proved dishonesty and appropriation beyond reasonable doubt on the totality of environment evidence, bank correspondence and inconsistent statements by the appellant which justified rejecting her defence. The Court allowed the appeal against conviction and sentence for possession of another's identity card because credible newly admitted evidence (the friend's confession and testimony availability) met the test for fresh evidence and could have undermined the prosecution's case; accordingly the conviction and sentence for that…
23 Dec 2022
The trial judge did not err: the 15‑month sentences on counts 1 and 2 represented a one‑third reduction from a 22.5‑month starting point for guilty pleas; the individual and aggregate sentences (total 20 months and 5 days) were not manifestly excessive; the appellant's new allegations were unsupported and prosecutorial delay was not prejudicial, so the appeal is dismissed.
4 Apr 2022
The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal and held the aggregate sentence of 8 months was not excessive given the appellant's criminal history, the nature of the offences and applicable guilty-plea discounts; although the court had power to increase the sentence, it declined to do so because the appellant had already served the sentence.
10 Dec 2021
The court dismissed the appeal because the magistrate's credibility findings accepting the police evidence and rejecting the appellant's account were open to him on the evidence, the prosecution proved the elements of theft and unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt (applying the Ghosh test for dishonesty), the failure to record every supplemental question did not render the trial unfair, and the sentences (3 months for theft and 18 months for possession, ordered concurrent) and the use of the Li Chang Li guideline were lawful and not excessive.
7 May 2020
The appeal on conviction is allowed in part because latent anomalies in the police custody/notification document (P4) created doubt sufficient to undermine the prosecution case on count 1 (knowingly misleading a police officer), leading to quashing of that conviction and vacation of its sentence. The conviction for count 2 (possession of another's identity card) is upheld because possession was established and the appellant failed to discharge his evidential burden of reasonable excuse. The original aggregate sentence for count 2 was reduced from 22 months 15 days to 18 months, to run consecu…
20 May 2019
The Court held the judge did not err in reducing the guilty plea discount to 25% for an absconding defendant or in ordering consecutive sentences for the failure to surrender; the sentencing starting point for trafficking was correctly applied; two arithmetic errors in discount calculations were corrected resulting in substituted sentences of 7 years 3 months (count 2) and 9 months (count 3), and the total term was adjusted to 7 years 10 months.
20 Mar 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate's sentence conformed to Court of Appeal guidelines: the appellant produced another's identity card to conceal identity which attracted a 15‑month starting point, the Magistrate inferred an 18‑month starting point and applied an appropriate reduction for an early plea to reach 12 months; activation of part of the suspended 2‑week sentence (to 1 week) and ordering it to run consecutively was proper and totality was respected; the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.
27 Jun 2018
The trial judge did not err in applying precedent or sentencing principles; adopting an 18‑month starting point for possession of another's HKID and granting a 25% guilty plea reduction to produce an effective sentence of 13 months and 2 weeks was within sentencing discretion; the appeal is dismissed.