21 Oct 2010
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's sentencing exercise was within proper judicial discretion: a starting point of 18 months reduced to 12 months for a guilty plea, with concurrent sentences, produced an already lenient outcome and the appellant's family circumstances did not amount to exceptional humanitarian reasons to warrant further reduction.
7 Apr 1983
For a person who returns to Hong Kong after illegal entry and repatriation, a custodial sentence of fifteen months is not manifestly excessive; deterrence and statutory context justify such a sentence and the Magistrate's allowance of three months' discount for age was unduly lenient, so the appeal is dismissed and the sentence upheld.
11 Feb 1974
The summing‑up given by the trial judge, including the initial clear direction on the onus of proof and benefit of doubt, was adequate and not dissipated when addressing the 5th accused; the jury verdicts were available on the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence; accordingly leave to appeal and appeals were refused and the sentences (4 years for handling stolen goods and 8 years for robbery) were not excessive and are upheld.
25 Apr 1973
Although the magistrate did not put each charge and take a plea on each count in the correct form, the appellant admitted the offences, the facts supported conviction, and the sentences were not shown to be manifestly excessive; the appeal is dismissed.
16 Feb 1973
The nine-month sentence was excessive for the offence of smoking dangerous drugs because it exceeded sentences previously imposed for the more serious offence of possession; the proper sentence is four months' imprisonment to preserve proportionality and consistency.