16 Oct 2020
The judge's starting point was in line with established tariff, he correctly applied legal principles to allow a 15% self-consumption reduction based on the available evidence and a 20% discount for a late guilty plea, and his overall exercise of sentencing discretion produced a sentence within permissible range; no reasonably arguable ground was shown, so leave to appeal was refused.
25 Mar 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion: he adopted an appropriate starting point for 38.8 grams of cocaine, applied a limited enhancement and modest mitigation adjustments, lawfully declined to grant a substantial self-consumption discount in the absence of supporting evidence, applied a guilty plea reduction, and therefore the resultant 5 year sentence was not demonstrably excessive.
20 May 2019
The court refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to show sufficient grounds or diligence to obtain representation; the judge reasonably rejected the self-consumption account; the enhancement for the international element and the chosen starting point were within judicial discretion; and the guilty plea discount was properly applied, therefore the sentence of seven years and four months was affirmed.
12 Dec 2018
The leave application was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied the Tam Yi Chun guideline using the narcotic content (45.4g) to set the starting point, properly discounted for a guilty plea, and there was no adequate, quantifiable basis to reduce further for self-consumption; any small discount would not have altered the overall sentence given the applicant's significant recidivism.
29 Sept 2017
The Court applied the ratio test to determine an appropriate enhanced starting point of 81 months (base via ratio test plus 6 months for trafficking in Ice and ketamine and 4 months for committing the offence while on bail), then applied a one-third discount for guilty plea, resulting in a substituted sentence of 54 months' imprisonment and quashing the earlier 56-month sentence.
16 May 2017
The Court upheld the judge’s inference that the two small packets (0.60g "Ice") were possessed for trafficking but found the inference insufficiently compelling as to the larger packet (6.49g). Exercising its power under s.23 Cap 221, the Court amended the charge sheet to convict the appellant of trafficking in 0.60g and of unlawful possession of 6.49g, and substituted sentences (3 years for trafficking; 18 months for possession with 12 months consecutive), producing a total effective sentence of 4 years, thereby dismissing the conviction challenge in part and allowing the sentence appeal in…
15 Jun 2006
The conviction was upheld because the evidence was overwhelming and established trafficking (possession of a portion for trafficking sufficed despite admissions of personal use). The trial judge erred in sentencing by failing to quantify and impose an appropriate separate element of sentence for the portion found to be for personal consumption and for the latent risk factor; on appeal the court allowed leave to appeal out of time against sentence in part and reduced the sentence on Charge 1 by two months to five years while leaving the concurrent sentence on Charge 2 unchanged, resulting in a…
18 Jan 2002
A sentencer must consider and may accept mitigation that part of the drugs was for personal consumption when supported by surrounding evidence, but such mitigation will rarely materially reduce sentence because possession for trafficking carries its own sentence and latent risk may require enhancement; social/non-commercial motive alone does not warrant a general reduction from guideline tariffs based on weight. On the facts both appellants were essentially traffickers and no reduction on the self-consumption or non-commercial bases was justified.