23 Mar 2022
The appeal is dismissed: the magistrate's 9‑month starting point for a repeat shoplifter who stole goods worth HK$434.3 was within established sentencing ranges, a 2‑month uplift for the appellant's 20 prior theft convictions was justified, and a full one‑third discount for an early plea produced a 6‑month immediate custodial sentence which is not manifestly excessive.
30 Oct 2020
The Court held the trial judge's 14-year benchmark for attempted rape was manifestly excessive on the facts; a 12-year starting point properly reflected the gravity given the aggravating features. Applying the admitted one-third guilty-plea reduction produced an 8-year term for count 2. The 3 years 4 months sentence for robbery (count 1) was appropriate but only 1 year of it should run concurrently with the 8-year term for count 2; the remainder and the short sentences for counts 3 and 4 should run consecutively, producing an aggregate sentence reduced from 12 years to 10 years 8 months.
25 Apr 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the sentencing judge adopted a starting point that was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle in this case; legal aid for the appeal was granted under Rule 12(3) Cap 221D.
23 Jun 2015
The sentencing judge erred in equating the instant case to Habib Hashan because abduction and the attendant aggravating features in that precedent were absent; the applicants were better described as new acquaintances rather than trusted friends so breach of trust was not a significant aggravating factor; the judge did not fail to consider youth but the appropriate starting point is 8 years, not 9, and the Court substituted 8 years imprisonment for each appellant.
7 Nov 1984
The court held that admitted collaboration among police officers in preparing notes does not, without more, undermine their credibility; Queen v Tam was confined to its special facts and does not establish that Hong Kong departs from the English approach exemplified by R v Bass, and the trial judge's finding that the officers were truthful and reliable should stand.
20 May 1980
Leave to appeal out of time was dismissed and the three-year sentence upheld because the sentencing court rightly had regard to the seriousness of the original armed robbery, the value of the stolen property and the appellant's pattern of gradual disposal; the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.