Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed a magistracy appeal over fixed-penalty proceedings, holding the summons was duly served by post and the magistrate could proceed in the appellant’s absence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Lau Ka Yan’s conviction appeal, holding that a Liberato direction was unnecessary and the jury directions on burden and proof were sufficient.
The application for a certificate under s32(2) is refused because the applicant's grounds are factual disputes already addressed on appeal, do not raise any reasonably arguable point of law of great and general importance, and do not demonstrate substantial and grave unfairness.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed an application for extension of time to appeal from a refusal of leave for judicial review, finding the delay substantial and the proposed appeal unmeritorious.
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge’s decision to admit the videotaped cautioned interview and to accept police evidence was adequately supported by the record and the judge’s reasoning when read in context; the absence of a more granular, separate exposition did not constitute an error of law under Okafor and related authorities and did not render the convictions unsafe.
Source excerpt
The Court held P8A was admissible and, on its proper interpretation, unambiguously supported the prosecution's case that the applicant suggested or referred to HK$200,000 to 'settle' matters so X would not give evidence; alleged deficiencies in trial counsel did not cause a miscarriage of justice because even if the omitted lines of defence had been fully advanced or the applicant had testified the powerful effect of P8A and other evidence would not have been undermined; therefore leave to appeal was refused and the conviction upheld.
Source excerpt
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not identify any reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an in-person applicant’s appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review, holding the Form 86 was defective and the claims were unarguable.
Leave to seek judicial review was refused because the applicant did not identify any arguable public law or constitutional ground against the decision to proceed with prosecution.
The Court of First Instance refused certification to the Court of Final Appeal on two proposed costs questions arising from a successful bail review under s.9J CPO.
Explore more
