29 Jun 2021
Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicants, as public figures who took frontline roles in a mass prohibited gathering during a serious public health emergency, posed substantial public health and public order risks; their culpability and the need for deterrence justified immediate custodial sentences, and they failed to satisfy either the merits or time limb for bail.
27 Apr 2006
The court certified that points of law of great and general importance arose in respect of both conviction and sentence and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on both the point-of-law limb and the substantial-and-grave-injustice limb; it also certified a sentencing principle in general terms relevant to the offence and circumstances and fixed the hearing date.
26 Feb 2003
The sentence of 12 years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the applicant's central role as mastermind, procurement and provision of a pistol and ammunition, selection of a vulnerable victim, and the real risk of serious harm; the plea was properly reflected by a reduction to 12 years and the disparity with other judges' sentences did not render this sentence inappropriate.
16 Jan 2001
The district judge erred in principle by failing to aggregate the quantities of heroin on the two counts and thus miscalculated the sentence; aggregating to 16 grammes yields a starting point of about six years, reduced by a one-third discount to four years, and because the sentence was wrong in principle leave to appeal was granted.
17 Dec 1998
The magistrate did not err in imposing a 27 month sentence; a 3 year starting point was appropriate given the heroin quantity and a 25% discount for a late guilty plea was justified in light of wasted court and police resources and the appellant's prior convictions and addiction, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
16 Jul 1968
The court upheld the Magistrate's finding that the appellant was not under sixteen and that imprisonment was not wrong in principle given the vicious nature of the wounding, the apparent intent to disfigure and the unsuitability of probation; however the sentence was excessive because the Magistrate failed to reflect the appellant's youth and guilty plea against the maximum available to the sentencing Magistrate, and the sentence was therefore reduced from two years to one year.