25 Jul 2018
The Court held that the trial judge's sentencing exercise was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle because the offences involved the use of potentially lethal weapons against unarmed older security guards in separate sequential assaults, and required substantial general and individual deterrence; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was refused.
30 Apr 2002
The court dismissed leave to appeal against conviction because the plea was voluntary, unequivocal and supported by evidence and medical reports; it dismissed the sentence appeal because the sentencing starting point and reductions were within acceptable bounds given the repeated use of weapons, the imitation firearm formed part of the robbery, the applicant's serious history and immediate reoffending justified the sentence and consecutive order, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.
30 Oct 1992
The Court held the trial judge properly applied the MO Kwong-sang guidelines and correctly assessed the aggravating effect of violence and weapons; the concurrent sentences imposed (eight years for aggravated burglary, four years for wounding, four years for each false imprisonment) were not excessive and the leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
6 Sept 1989
The Court held that an 11-year sentence was excessive given the guilty plea, the absence of firearms or excessive physical violence, and comparative sentencing of co-defendants; the appropriate sentence on the facts was nine years and the appeal was allowed to reduce the sentence from 11 to 9 years.
9 Sept 1988
The Court refused to interfere with the sentence because, despite discounts for guilty pleas and absence of offensive weapons, the violent character of the offences (victims rendered unconscious), the appellant's extensive and long-standing record of similar offences, and the assessment that he remained dangerous justified the 11 year sentence.
5 May 1983
Having given full weight to the applicants' youth and the pre-sentence reports, the Court found the offences were multiple, deliberate and involved knives; the sentences were not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and therefore the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.
17 Aug 1977
Conviction stands because the evidence supports an inference that the use of blunt instruments was in pursuance of a common design and thus the appellant shared the common intent to cause grievous bodily harm; however, on sentencing the appellant's lesser role and his reaction to the knife justified reducing the sentence.
26 May 1976
The court concluded that the first appellant's four year sentence was excessive given his minimal antecedents and genuine remorse and reduced it to three years; the second appellant's four year sentence was upheld because of his prior convictions and the seriousness of the offence.
14 Aug 1972
A magistrate sentencing a youth must not assume imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence; where a youthful offender has a clear record and may be at a crossroads, the court should consider statutory alternatives (Training Centre, Detention Centre, Probation) and obtain Probation/Training/Detention Centre reports before finalizing a custodial sentence.