10 Nov 2011
The appeal is allowed and the conviction set aside because the jury were left without necessary factual context as to the practice of granting sentence discounts to cooperating accomplice witnesses and the judge failed to give sufficiently protective directions after prejudicial cross-examination, producing a real risk of unfairness that warrants a retrial.
7 Mar 2007
The Court held that the judge properly applied the Lau Tak-ming starting point of 21 years and that a 45% discount for immediate, sustained and successful cooperation (short of being a supergrass) fell within the established acceptable range; accordingly the resulting sentences of 12 years for each applicant were not manifestly excessive and leave to appeal was dismissed.
10 Jan 1984
The judge's invitation to the accused to make an unsupervised statement was improper but not so prejudicial as to affect the jury's verdict; the conviction was therefore upheld and the 12-year sentence was not excessive and was affirmed.