19 Jul 2022
The 3-month custodial sentence was excessive in all the circumstances given the low level of physical contact (a shoulder barge) with no injury, the appellant's youth and clear record and time in remand; accordingly the sentence was reduced to 14 days' imprisonment, to be treated as served.
13 Aug 2021
Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant raised a reasonably arguable ground that the 5 year disqualification was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge may not have sufficiently considered the forward-looking, preventative purpose of disqualification and mitigating factors such as the applicant's long good driving record and the impact on his livelihood.
30 Jun 2021
The jury's verdict of reckless arson was supported by evidence of deliberate creation of a hazardous situation and ignition of gas canisters, so leave to appeal conviction is refused; however, the applicant's documented mental disturbance and the specific factual background raise open questions on the appropriateness of a six-year sentence, so leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
9 Nov 2020
The court allowed the appeal in part and revoked the 12‑month driving disqualification because disqualification for the s42(3) offence is not mandatory and, balancing mitigation (immediate plea, first offence) against the seriousness (accident and injury), a fine of HK$2,500 adequately reflected the offence; the fine was therefore upheld and the suspension set aside.
27 Sept 2019
Appeal allowed in part: the court reduced the period of disqualification from 15 months to the statutory minimum of 6 months because, given the appellant's first-time status, long driving career with only minor infractions, and potential prejudicial employment consequences that were not properly placed before the magistrate, a six-month disqualification was appropriate; the magistrate's other orders (fine and improvement course) were upheld.
2 Nov 2018
The magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's mitigation as not credible in light of inconsistencies with the background report and the appellant's own statements; those rejected mitigations did not constitute sufficiently strong humanitarian grounds and therefore there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.
26 Feb 2018
Given the appellant's accepted lack of intent, proactive disclosure at the checkpoint, and the open visibility of the goods, immediate imprisonment was disproportionate; the two‑month custodial sentence should be suspended for 12 months as an appropriate balance between mitigation and public interest deterrence.
19 May 2017
The court rejected the defendant's account as inherently illogical, contradictory and inconsistent with contemporaneous records and accepted the evidence of the Customs Officers and exhibits, concluding the defendant did not offer assistance; the right to silence was not used to draw an adverse inference but was relevant evidence of non-cooperation for sentencing.
11 May 2017
Court accepted video and witness evidence established a planned joint assault: D2 and another person threw bags of animal entrails at victim and D3 filmed; D3's deliberate filming and coordinated conduct supported conviction for joint enterprise; D1 and D2 committed assaults on interveners; sentencing starting points (D2/D3 18 weeks, D1 counts 6 and 3 weeks) and application of plea discount and totality were appropriate; appeals dismissed.
20 Aug 2015
Leave to cross-examine was refused because the proposed questions would not produce evidence sufficiently relevant to culpability for sentencing in the circumstances: (a) source reliability was irrelevant where no inaccuracy was alleged and it did not aggravate the contempt; (b) defendants' mitigation did not depend on positive assertions that the cross-examination sought to elicit and it would be improper to compel them to produce aggravating evidence; and (c) editors remain responsible for reporters so the proposed inquiries were unnecessary; the court retained power to revisit the issue if…