6 May 2026
Bail pending appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable appeal against sentence or conviction; the sentencing judge's starting point, enhancements for assorted drugs and Form 8 status, and a 16.7% discount for a late plea were within established guidelines and not manifestly excessive; abandonment of appeal against conviction stands as valid.
27 Mar 2026
On a full re‑hearing of the evidence the court was satisfied in each consolidated matter that objective evidence (photographs, sketches, video) and accepted cautioned admissions established the offences beyond reasonable doubt; there is no statutory requirement that prosecutions under the Fire Services (Elimination of Fire Hazard) Regulations be preceded by a 24‑hour notice to avoid prosecution; Housing Department clearance actions were lawful under Cap.283; the trial judge correctly admitted and relied on cautioned statements as voluntary; sentences were within principled range and not manif…
27 Feb 2026
Bail pending appeal was refused because the court was not persuaded that any reduction in sentence obtainable on appeal would be such as to warrant bail on the time‑served ground; an expedited hearing of the sentence appeal was ordered.
16 Dec 2025
Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that his intended appeal had a very high prospect of success or that his sentence was so short that refusal would be unfair; the judge found the grounds advanced were unmeritorious given the applicant's own admitted facts, prior convictions, period of absconding and the reasoned sentencing analysis of the trial judge.
15 Oct 2025
Given the amount processed (approximately HK$2.23 million), the frequency of transactions and the appellant's facilitation role, a custodial starting point of 25 months was appropriate; a 25% discount for a guilty plea entered on the first day reduced the sentence to 20 months which is not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
19 Sept 2025
The Court dismissed both stay applications because the CFI should not assume jurisdiction to suspend the committal pending the defendant's CFA leave application (power rests with Court of Appeal/CFA) and the defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable sentencing appeal; the court activated the committal order, directed return of the $500,000 paid into court to the defendant, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
19 Nov 2024
Bail was refused because the application merely repeated the previously dismissed application without any material change or new evidence, and the alleged collusion to induce guilty pleas was speculative and unsupported, therefore insufficient to justify bail pending appeal.
30 Oct 2024
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the training centre order because the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor legally erroneous given the seriousness of handling proceeds from a phone‑scam targeting an elderly victim, the appellant's repeated reoffending (including offences while on bail and disciplinary breaches in custody), lack of remorse, and the greater rehabilitative utility of a longer training centre order for this juvenile offender.
13 Sept 2024
Given the size of the unauthorised structures (approximately 74 sqm), the ongoing non‑compliance (structures remained at sentence hearing), the potential safety risk, and the lack of exceptional mitigation beyond a plea discount, the trial judge’s sentence of HK$30,000 plus a daily fine of HK$50 for 114 days (total HK$35,700) was not manifestly excessive and should be upheld.
2 Aug 2024
The licences had expired and were not valid after 6/7 May 2021 because renewal requirements under Cap.615 were not satisfied; transaction records together with appellants' admissions sufficiently proved operation of money services without a licence contrary to s29; the second appellant's admissions were clear, voluntary and adequate to support conviction and his application to adduce additional documents failed; the sentences of HKD3,000 per summons (total HKD39,000 for first and third; HKD36,000 for second) were within a reasonable and lenient range given the statutory purpose, scale of tran…