3 Oct 2008
Given the quantity of heroin, the international nature of the trafficking and established authorities supporting a 25-year starting point, the application of a one-third discount producing a sentence of 16 years 8 months was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was dismissed.
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.
3 Nov 2005
The convictions were upheld because the prosecution evidence was clear and convincing and minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the police witnesses; the applicant's claim of a prior no‑case ruling was a misapprehension and the separate acquittal did not establish framing, therefore the renewed application for leave to appeal was without merit and dismissed, and the court applied s83W CPO to disallow reckoning of three months' custody.
30 Jun 2005
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's starting point of 30 months was justified by the quantity of drugs (4.59 g mixture containing 3.35 g heroin hydrochloride) and the appellant's extensive prior convictions, and the one‑third reduction for plea to 20 months was appropriate.
1 Dec 2004
The court admitted the police statements, found police already knew of the applicant's connection to the premises so the additional drugs would inevitably have been found without his assistance, and held that the full discount for guilty plea appropriately reflected his cooperation; prior good character did not warrant further discount for serious drug offences.
5 Feb 2003
Leave to appeal out of time was granted; the 32-year starting point was not manifestly excessive but the Court increased the discounts to 50% to recognize post-sentence cooperation (even though it did not result in convictions) and equalised the applicants' treatment, reducing each sentence to 16 years' imprisonment.
30 Jan 2003
The Court upheld the sentencing judge's imposition of consecutive sentences and refused to interfere with the overall sentence of three years and four months to be served consecutively to the existing twenty-one month sentence, finding the total sentence not manifestly excessive.
11 Dec 2002
The court dismissed leave to appeal against conviction because there was no reason to disturb the deputy judge's detailed credibility findings and assessment of identification evidence; on sentencing the court allowed the appeal in part by ordering the possession sentence to run concurrently with the trafficking sentences under the principle of totality, reducing the total custody from 4 years 9 months to 4 years 6 months.
8 May 2002
Although the trial judge made a material misdirection by suggesting the prosecution's burden was 'not as high as' some hypothetical higher state of sureness, the summing up otherwise clearly and repeatedly directed the jury correctly on the burden of proof, the evidence (including admissions and co-accused testimony) was overwhelming, and therefore under the proviso s.83(1) no miscarriage of justice occurred; convictions were upheld. On sentencing the court accepted the overall approach but reduced individual concurrent sentences to align with Lau Tak Ming guidelines while preserving totality…
16 Apr 2002
Leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant tariff, took an appropriate starting point, and legitimately discounted the sentence for mitigation including family circumstances and guilty pleas; there was no ground shown to justify interference.