HKSAR v Liu Tsz Man  4 HKLRD 401,  HKCA 1765
D pleaded guilty to one count of “possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property” contrary to ss.62(b) and 63(2) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap.200) in the District Court and was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment, with 4 months to be served consecutively with another case (DCCC 570/2021). In the Trial Judge’s postscript, it was stated that had he known about the fact that D had finished serving the sentence for DCCC 570/2021, in consideration of the totality principle, D would have been sentenced to a total sentence of no more than 31 months for both cases, with a sentence of 21 months for the present offence. This was D’s second bail application pending appeal against sentence, following the refusal of the first application.
Held, allowing the bail application on conditions, that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal might re-sentence D according to the Trial Judge’s intention. That being the case, D could have been discharged probably before a date of the hearing of the appeal was formally fixed. (See para.5.)
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]