4 Oct 2019
The trial judge's directions were correct and sufficient given the facts; there was no unfairness from the judge's interventions; the jury's guilty verdicts were safe and leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
20 Nov 2015
The court refused to certify any points of law under s32(2) because the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the four month delay and the issues raised had been addressed in prior judgments and lacked merit; consequently the Notice of Motion was dismissed and no certificate issued.
8 Oct 2015
The Court held there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal because the judge’s starting point and ultimate sentences were justified by the sophistication and syndicated nature of the offences, the international element of coming to Hong Kong to commit large‑scale ATM fraud, the presence of encoders and computers, and the amounts involved; guilty plea discounts and totality were properly applied, so leave to appeal was refused.
7 May 2015
Given the number of forged cards, the potential loss and the applicant's travel to Hong Kong for the specific purpose of using the cards, the offences constituted a medium size operation with an international element; the starting point of 5 years was appropriate, the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, the renewed application was without merit and must be refused, and pursuant to s.83W three months of time in custody pending the renewal shall not be reckoned as part of the sentence.
27 Aug 2014
The Court upheld the sentencing judge's approach: the international dimension and possession of a forged foreign identity card were proper aggravating factors justifying the chosen starting point (3.5 years) with a one‑third reduction for guilty pleas; the applicant's operational role, though not principal, was necessary to the fraud and did not merit a greater reduction; the compensation order out of seized monies did not justify further discount; application to vary sentence lacked merit and was dismissed, but the Court exercised its statutory power to exclude six weeks of custody pending a…
13 Jan 2014
The Court refused to admit the late medical report because it would not afford a ground of appeal under s83V; it upheld the sentencing judge's starting points and concurrent structure as proportionate given the large quantities, enormous face value, international dimension and potential for substantial loss, and therefore found the total 3 year sentence not manifestly excessive; the Court ordered a loss of time of four weeks under s83W because the applicant's application was totally unmeritorious and had wasted judicial time.
10 May 2013
The Court found the 2-year sentence manifestly excessive given the judge's finding that the appellant had no proven intention that the cards be used for fraudulent purposes; his culpability was limited to possession with knowledge that they were forged, the risk of further fraud was reduced by likely account blocking, and mitigating factors did not justify 2 years. The Court quashed the 2-year sentence and substituted 18 months imprisonment.
25 Nov 2011
Having rejected the appellant's explanation, the magistrate correctly inferred from the presence of six false banking documents in the appellant's home, their association with the appellant's company and surrounding circumstances that the appellant had custody and control of the documents and knew or believed them to be false and that he failed to establish lawful authority or excuse; accordingly the conviction under s.75(2) was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 2011
Even allowing a lacuna as to what happened to the keys after arrest, the judge could properly find on the totality of evidence (circumstantial links: fingerprints, SIM serial match, computer data, key fitting padlock, presence of items in applicant's premises) that the keys had been in the applicant's possession and that, despite the trial judge's misreference to s.29(3)(a), a properly directed judge would inevitably have concluded the applicant knew or believed the goods to be stolen; therefore the appeal on the handling stolen goods charge fails.
29 Oct 2008
The appeal was dismissed because the court found the overall five‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the number and seriousness of offences, the applicant received full credit for guilty pleas, repayments were not creditable mitigation for the applicant, and totality was adequately addressed by concurrent and consecutive ordering.