5 Mar 2025
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the prosecution conceded the value of the applicant's assistance and the full Court should determine the appropriate sentencing discount in light of any continuing assistance.
24 Jul 2024
The Court held that both applicants provided practical, useful and truthful assistance that led to the arrest and conviction of a co‑accused; there was no evidence of real or ongoing risk to the applicants or their families; such assistance justifies a 50% total discount, and therefore the sentences were reduced accordingly.
23 Nov 2023
Leave to appeal was granted because it was plainly arguable that the sentence could be further reduced on the basis of the applicant's assistance to the prosecution.
17 Jun 2022
The judge correctly applied the 15-month starting point from R v So Man King, lawfully exercised discretion to deduct 35 days administrative detention and to allow a 30-day reduction for self-surrender (netting 390 days), and therefore the sentence was not excessive and the appeal fails.
13 Dec 2019
Court accepted 18 months as the appropriate starting point, acknowledged guilty plea discount and that the appellant's assistance was of practical use despite the intermediary's absconding, and held that a further reduction of about 40–45% was appropriate; applying that approach reduced the appellant's sentence from the original 12 months to 10 months' imprisonment.
6 Dec 2019
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that he had provided assistance of practical value to the authorities; police certifications and investigations showed the information was unreliable and there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal based on assistance, and absent exceptional circumstances the court will not override the authorities' assessment.
10 Oct 2019
The judge correctly applied the tariff in HKSAR v Tam Yi Chun, adopted a starting point of 8 years 3 months and properly reduced it by one-third for a timely guilty plea to 5 years 6 months; the factual findings rejecting the applicant's claim of partial personal use were justified, therefore there was no basis to grant leave to appeal against sentence.
19 Jul 2019
Leave to appeal refused because the applicant legally entered guilty pleas and agreed the summary of facts, the convictions were supported by evidence, and the sentencing judge lawfully exercised discretion in selecting a 42‑month starting point and applying reductions for police delay and the guilty plea to result in concurrent 25‑month terms which were proportionate to the offence and danger posed by the conduct.
12 Apr 2019
The court held that, on the facts, the applicant's assistance and truthful material testimony justified a 50% discount; accordingly the appeal was allowed, leave to appeal out of time granted, the original 14 year sentence was set aside and replaced with 10 years and 6 months imprisonment.
29 Jun 2018
The application for leave to appeal the sentence is refused because the 30‑month sentence was accepted by the applicant as appropriate, the offences involved prior similar conduct and commission while on bail (aggravating), and the proposed conditional release tied to repayment has no legal basis and is therefore unacceptable.