COURT OF FINAL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2003 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 723 OF 2002) LI MAN WAI Appellant AND SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Respondent

Facts and History: The appellant was initially acquitted by a magistrate after being charged with unauthorized access to the Inland Revenue Department's (IRD) computer system with the intent of dishonest gain. However, upon an application by the prosecution, the case was stated for the opinion of a judge, who directed the magistrate to convict the appellant. The appellant gained unauthorized access to the IRD's computer system, obtained personal information of a colleague, and used it for a WWF membership application without consent.

Decision: The magistrate's reasons for acquitting the appellant emphasized the lack of dishonest intent or gain. However, the judge, applying the two-stage Ghosh test, concluded that dishonesty was established and ordered the appellant's conviction and a $1,000 fine. The appellant appealed, arguing that the judge wrongly intervened in factual findings.

The appellate court considered the limited grounds for intervention in a case stated appeal, emphasizing that it is not a rehearing but a review for errors of law or jurisdiction. The court found that the judge erred in intervening on the question of dishonesty, asserting that the magistrate's finding was not unreasonable or perverse. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, maintaining that the judge was not entitled to reverse the magistrate's factual findings.

COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 342 OF 2006) HKSAR Respondent and WEN ZELANG (溫澤浪) Appellant

Facts and History: The appellant, Wen Zelang, and three others were found in possession of wooden blocks taken from an endangered incense tree in Hong Kong. The appellant, along with his co-defendants, intended to sell the wood in the Mainland. They were charged with theft, pleaded guilty, and each received a 30-month imprisonment sentence from Deputy Judge Wesley Wong.

The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that both the starting point and the enhancement under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance were excessive. The Court of Appeal, comprising Hon Stuart-Moore Ag CJHC and Yeung JA, allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to 20 months.

Decision: The judgment highlighted the serious threat of extinction faced by incense trees due to over-exploitation and the demand for their wood. The appellant, a two-way permit visitor, had come to Hong Kong with the purpose of cutting endangered trees for profit.

The court acknowledged the judge's serious view of the offense, emphasizing the need to deter individuals from exploiting endangered trees in Hong Kong. While the appellant had no previous convictions, the court maintained that the one-third discount for a guilty plea was standard. However, the court considered the appellant's age, 17, and the influence of his paternal uncle, Wen Yajia, in mitigating his culpability.

As a result, the Court of Appeal adjusted the starting point for the appellant to two years' imprisonment, with a final sentence of 20 months after applying the appropriate discounts and enhancements.