24 Jan 2007
The magistrate's reasoned and logical findings that accepted the victim's testimony and relied on the appellant's admissions established sufficient evidence to support the conviction; the sentence of HK$1,500 was within appropriate bounds and therefore both conviction and sentence are upheld.
2 Aug 2002
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant provided no reason demonstrating that the conviction was unsafe or that the sentence was inappropriate, and therefore no basis existed to grant leave.
4 Jul 2000
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to give adequate reasons for the delay and the proposed appeal lacked merit: the offences were serious, involved $4.4 million taken in a sophisticated operation, the trial was contested (no guilty plea warranting discount), and consecutive sentences were properly imposed to reflect overall criminality.
15 Jan 1999
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and there was no arguable merit that the four‑year concurrent sentences were inappropriate given the finding of a sophisticated long‑firm fraud involving goods valued at HKD 557,000; accordingly the original conviction and sentence stand and custodial credit was limited.
4 Oct 1996
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant had every opportunity to plead guilty and the ten year sentence imposed after a contested trial was within the appropriate range for the offence.
10 Nov 1995
The Court held the trial judge had properly considered diminished responsibility, the applicant's depression, guilty plea, remorse and character and had exercised sentencing discretion within proper bounds; there was no basis to conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
11 Mar 1994
The Court refused leave because the trial judge conducted a careful, cautious evaluation of the crucial identification evidence, properly warned himself under applicable authorities, and was entitled to accept PW1's identification of both applicants; any procedural or analytical error about whether incidents were one or two did not render the convictions unsafe and in Tang's favour, and the sentences were within judicial discretion.
25 Jul 1991
Given the organised, premeditated and severe nature of the attack causing life‑threatening injuries, and that mitigating factors (age, clear record) did not outweigh those aggravating features, the seven-year sentence was appropriate; therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
8 Feb 1988
The appeal was allowed because a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order was inappropriate in the appellant's circumstances—he had been previously sent twice to such a centre without benefit and there was no indication further custodial treatment would help—therefore the DATC order was set aside and replaced with a two-year probation order, taking into account the appellant had already spent two months in custody and the maximum summary penalty was six months' imprisonment.
12 Dec 1968
The magistrate's inference of intent to distribute was justified by the appellants being found actively packing over 30 grammes of dangerous drugs and by their prior convictions; therefore the sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment were proper and the appeals were dismissed.