31 Mar 2010
Given the serious aggravating features — careful planning, targeting isolated vulnerable victims, physical restraint, prolonged detention and the bank-account feature — the trial judge's starting point and reductions were lawful; the applicant's positive character and awards did not warrant further reduction. Leave to appeal was therefore dismissed and the sentence upheld.
14 Aug 2002
The magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witnesses' testimony and rejection of the appellant's account was reasonable and adequately explained; there was no basis for the appellate court to interfere, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is upheld.
15 May 2002
After applying the Ching Kwok-hung starting points and allowing the one-third guilty plea discount, and given the substantial quantity of Ice which negates significant credit for previous good character, the imposed sentences were not wrong or manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
10 Jul 1998
The Court held the sentencing judge correctly followed sentencing guidelines, adopted an 8 year starting point and properly reduced it to 5 years; the judge was entitled to give little credit for previous good character in respect of substantial quantities of dangerous drugs, and therefore the appeal alleging failure to give discount was dismissed.
30 Aug 1996
The Court held the trial judge did not err in principle or in weight accorded to mitigation; the sentence of three years and eight months was not manifestly excessive and leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
8 Sept 1995
Given the applicant's previously good character, psychiatric vulnerability, genuine remorse, the isolated and botched nature of the offence and low actual harm, the two-year sentence was excessive and should be reduced to one year; the Court may treat a leave application as the appeal where appropriate.
14 Nov 1986
Given the very large face value of the forged notes and this Court's guidance in Ngan Chun Yee, the six year sentence was not excessive despite the applicant's clear record; appellate interference was unwarranted.
10 Dec 1985
The Court refused leave because the sentencing judge lawfully exercised discretion: he considered mitigation (including guilty plea, surrender and assistance), appropriately discounted the sentence from a potential 7 years to 3 years given the prolonged, large-scale conspiracy and substantial losses, and there was no error of principle or demonstrated manifest excess to justify appellate intervention.
17 Feb 1977
Appeal allowed in part because the magistrate's approach discounting previous good character was wrong and the circumstances (guilty plea, sudden temptation, clear record) warranted mitigation; original custodial sentence of nine months was replaced with twelve months' imprisonment suspended for two years.
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.