25 Nov 2025
Extension of time to seek leave was granted; the applicant presented a reasonably arguable ground that his post-sentence testimony warrants an increased discount within a 40–50% range; accordingly leave to appeal and bail pending appeal were granted because the arguable appeal coupled with likely substantial time served justified bail.
13 Sept 2023
The appellant was entitled to a 50% overall reduction (inclusive of the one‑third plea discount) from the notional post‑trial sentence of 25½ years because his assistance materially contributed to the convictions but did not meet the exceptional 'supergrass' threshold; applying that 50% reduction produced a sentence of 12 years and 9 months' imprisonment, to which the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence accordingly.
31 Aug 2023
The trial judge’s categorical refusal to apply the Wong Suet Hau guidance and to hold a Newton hearing where the defence persisted in a personal-use contention was an error of principle and procedure; that error warranted granting leave to appeal against sentence to allow the sentencing issues to be properly considered.
19 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal refused because the summing-up was fair and balanced, there are no reasonably arguable grounds that the jury directions, the absence of fingerprints, the interpreter's adequacy, the written handout or the proforma questions rendered the conviction unsafe, and there is no reasonably arguable challenge to the sentence or the discount for assistance.
10 Nov 2021
The Court accepted the evaluations of the police and a senior officer that the appellant's information was vague, unreliable and already known or unproductive, and therefore not of practical use; accordingly no additional discount for assistance was warranted and the sentence was upheld.
28 Oct 2021
Appellant's pleas to Counts 1 and 2 were unequivocal and could justify directing the jury, but the convictions were unsafe because the trial judge relied on prosecuting counsel's opening and a Summary of Facts derived from depositions (material not properly adduced or admitted) when convicting and sentencing; that reliance tainted the convictions and sentence for Counts 1 and 2 and required quashing and retrial; pleas to Counts 3–7 were properly entered and convictions on those counts were upheld.
12 Apr 2019
Leave to appeal out of time is granted but the substantive appeal is dismissed because the applicant's pre-arrest tipoffs were paid and of limited comparative seriousness; the payments were not insufficient under police guidelines and did not warrant a further discount beyond that given, and the sentencing starting point and cross-border enhancement were within appropriate and lenient bounds.
11 Dec 2018
The Court held that a 45% discount for assistance without testifying was appropriate in the circumstances and that the 18‑month enhancement was excessive; substituting a 13‑month enhancement for the aggravating factor of having come to Hong Kong to commit the offence and recalculating the sentence from the starting point produced a lawful sentence of 10 years and 11 months imprisonment, which replaced the judge's sentence of 11 years and 1 month.
15 Jan 2018
Extension of time was granted because the applicant's post-sentence assistance was known at sentencing, was substantial and in the public interest to reward; the applicant provided instrumental assistance leading to conviction of a principal and is therefore entitled to a 50% reduction from the accepted starting point of 28 years, producing a substituted sentence of 14 years' imprisonment; affirmation and exhibits admitted as fresh evidence and appeal allowed.
23 Dec 2013
The judge's directions warning the jury that the accomplice may lie to obtain a sentence discount were adequate; there is no duty to quantify any discount and the directions did not produce a substantial and grave injustice, therefore leave to appeal is refused.