R v Yiu; R v Yau

The respondents, Yiu and Yau, were convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced by the sentencing judge. The Crown appealed the sentences imposed, arguing they were manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central legal issues were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, focusing on the concept of manifest inadequacy. It determined that although the objective seriousness of the offences was below the mid-range, it was not at the lowest level. The court noted that the sentencing judge had incorrectly classified the objective seriousness, leading to an inadequate sentence. The court exercised its discretion to intervene, finding that the sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed based on the misclassification of the objective seriousness and the resulting inadequacy of the sentences imposed.

The Court of Appeal quashed the sentences and remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge must correctly classify the objective seriousness of the offences and impose a sentence that reflects that classification. The court did not specify a particular sentence but left it to the sentencing judge to re-evaluate the matter in accordance with the law.