18 Jan 2021
The court found that the payment pursuant to the consent order amounted to purging the contempt and, having taken into account the period already served and remission, the 2nd defendant had been punished enough; no coercive purpose justified continued detention and therefore immediate discharge was ordered.
15 Aug 2019
Bail pending appeal was granted because the appeal was not hopeless, the respondent accepted there was no substantial risk of absconding, and the appellant would have served the substantial majority of his sentence by the time the appeal was heard, making continued detention unnecessary.
2 May 2019
Bail was granted because the court found the applicantʼs appeal was reasonably arguable on the ground that the 20‑month sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and there was a real likelihood that, taking into account time already served, remission and the scheduling of an expedited hearing, the applicant would have served all or a substantial part of the sentence before the appeal was heard.
15 Jun 2015
The arbitrator failed to address and give understandable reasons for rejecting the central pleaded limitation defence (Paragraph 7.5); that omission created a real risk of substantial injustice and offended fundamental notions of justice such that enforcement would be contrary to public policy, but the defect was remediable; accordingly the court remitted the award to the arbitrator under Article 34(4), stayed the setting aside proceedings for 90 days, and made an order nisi for costs in favour of A.
14 Jul 2008
Although the magistrate's original sentence of 8 weeks was proper given the deliberate assault and prior warnings, the appeal court reduced the sentence to 30 days for very special mitigating reasons (employment, dependants, active steps to address alcohol problem and immigration/contract timing) while leaving the substantive assessment of seriousness intact; the court also ordered $7,500 of the $20,000 bail money paid as compensation to the assaulted officer with the balance to be a fine.
12 Apr 2005
Under the amended s67C(1) and (3) the Court of First Instance judge must determine minimum terms for prescribed prisoners; in doing so the judge must fix periods that reflect the overall gravity of the offending and purposes of retribution and deterrence, may consider relevant post‑sentence material (psychological, psychiatric and correctional reports and conduct in custody) but must not take into account prior executive determinations; where useful the court applies a notional determinate totality exercise and accounts for statutory remission when converting to a minimum term.
12 Apr 2005
The court determined minimum terms by estimating an appropriate global determinate sentence reflecting the totality of offences and culpability, applied any applicable plea discounts, and then applied statutory remission (up to one third) to convert the effective custodial period into the minimum term; the judge may consider post‑sentence reports but must disregard prior executive determinations under the repealed scheme.
12 Apr 2005
The court held that under the amended section 67C a judge must determine minimum terms that reflect the gravity of the original offences, retribution and deterrence, adopting the standpoint of the original sentencing judge while taking into account relevant post‑sentence material but not prior executive determinations. Applying totality and remission rules produced the following minimum terms: Lam Pak Hung 25 years; So Ching Kwan 12 years; Ho Tung Shing 20 years; Fung Wai Hon 22 years.
2 Mar 2005
A judge exercising the s67C(3) power must fix a minimum term that reflects the original sentencing considerations of gravity, retribution and deterrence, may take relevant post-sentence reports into account (but not prior executive determinations), and applying contemporary sentencing starting points and remission principles the appropriate minimum term for the respondent's four rape convictions is 20 years imprisonment.
5 Aug 2004
Where a convicted person gives substantial post-sentence assistance promptly and there are satisfactory explanations for delay, the Court will extend time to file an application for leave to appeal and assess the merit of the sentencing mitigation; the court may reduce the sentence accordingly rather than require exclusive recourse to Executive remission. Applying those principles, time was extended, leave granted and sentence reduced from 6 years 8 months to 4 years 6 months imprisonment.