23 Sept 2025
On rehearing the judge found no exceptional circumstances to depart from the established Court of Appeal guideline (15 months on plea, 22.5 months after trial) and concluded the Magistrate did not err in principle; the sentence of 22 months and 2 weeks was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
21 Mar 2018
Leave to appeal is granted where it is reasonably arguable that the Court of Appeal's departure from the prevailing sentencing guideline at the time of the offence caused substantial and grave injustice; accordingly leave was granted to all applicants confined to that ground, with additional leave for the 5th and 6th applicants on the ground that the Court of Appeal may have failed properly to consider section 109A CPO; other certified questions were refused as already answered and other grounds lacked merit.
23 Feb 2017
The court accepted prosecution witnesses as credible, found the appellant understood Hindi and that there was no inducement, admitted the interview and found the admissions corroborated eyewitness evidence proving employment while a removal order was in force; the sentence of 22 months and 2 weeks was within the appropriate guideline and the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
11 Apr 2014
The magistrate's credibility findings, supported by contemporaneous photographic evidence of an unfinished flat and tools consistent with renovation work, justified the irresistible inference that both appellants were working for wages while unlawfully in Hong Kong, so convictions under s38AA were safe; the 2nd appellant's sentence followed the recognised guideline (adjusted upward for conviction after trial) and was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, so appellate interference was unjustified.
8 Jul 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly assessed and accepted the independent eyewitness evidence, justifiably rejected the appellant's account, correctly applied the law on good character and sentencing guideline (Ngo Van Huy), and there was no basis to regard the conviction or the 12-month sentence as unsafe or excessive.
2 Aug 2012
The appeal is dismissed because no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify departing from the established sentencing guideline in HKSAR v Usman But, and the magistrate lawfully deducted administrative detention time, making the imposed 11-month term appropriate.
14 Dec 2005
The appeal was allowed in part because the appellate court, having been presented with factual material not before the Magistrate that established mitigation (including deception by the employee), concluded that the seven‑week sentence should be suspended for 12 months.
26 Feb 1991
Cheng Yeung guideline applies; the trial judge applied too high a starting point by relying on Lau Tak-ming; proper starting point is 20 years less a four-year discount for the guilty plea taken on advice, producing a 16-year sentence.
14 May 1990
Because the government introduced a new prosecution policy targeting group arrivals without publicizing it and long-standing executive conduct had created a reasonable expectation of repatriation for first-time entrants, the court reduced the standard 15 month sentence to six months for first-time illegal entrants arriving in groups, and held that the mitigation applies equally to attempted landings.
11 Oct 1989
Where a magistrate knowingly departs from an established sentencing guideline without justification, the appellate court may intervene and increase the sentence to the guideline figure; because the appellant had been warned that sentence might be increased, the court increased the sentence from 12 to 15 months.