24 Oct 2024
Because the alleged errors in the summons/charge did not cause actual unfairness to the appellant, the trial judge and this court were entitled to correct them; accordingly the appeal fails and the conviction is upheld.
14 Nov 2013
Bail was granted because the applicant had served most of his 21‑month sentence and raised a reasonable arguable ground — that the trial judge lacked neutrality in proposing and approving amendment of the charges — such that refusal of bail would risk injustice.
10 Mar 2011
The Court upheld the magistrate’s factual findings on credibility and concluded that promises, acknowledgements and delivery of cheques (including cheques drawn on closed accounts or crossed to cash) established legally enforceable liabilities capable of being enforced and proved beyond reasonable doubt; amendments to charges to reflect approximate sums were permissible under s27 where no injustice resulted; exhibit P4 was admissible as evidence of acknowledgement despite absence of a Bank of China affirmation; the 11‑month delay in producing the statement of findings, while regrettable, was…
10 Mar 2011
The magistrate's factual findings that the complainants were credible and that the appellant acknowledged debts by promises and delivery of cheques supported the conclusion that legally enforceable liabilities existed; the magistrate applied the correct criminal standard of proof, properly admitted and evaluated documentary evidence and rightly amended charges under s27 without causing injustice; delay in producing the statement of findings, while regrettable, did not prejudice the appellant sufficiently to warrant quashing convictions or a permanent stay, therefore convictions and sentences…
9 Dec 2004
The magistrate lawfully exercised the mandatory duty under s.27 to propose and make the amendment after hearing evidence and submissions; the amendment did not change the substance of the prosecution case and caused no prejudice or injustice; ss.31/32 were inapplicable; there is no point of law of great and general importance nor any reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms — leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 May 2004
The Court held that the proven agreement to conceal a material defect and remedial works from the Buildings Department, developer and consultant amounted to a conspiracy to defraud; the appellant was shown to have acted dishonestly and to have accepted advantages with a corrupt state of mind; charges 4 and 5 could be amended without injustice and, despite duplicity in charges 6 and 7, the proviso applied and convictions were safe; the appeal was dismissed.
30 Apr 2004
D1: The theft that produced the stolen status of the goods was a relevant event occurring in Hong Kong and therefore the handling offence as charged was within the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance; D2: the amended particulars of the s25 offence expressly alleged dealing in Mainland China so the actus reus occurred outside Hong Kong and the charge as particularized was not justiciable here; further, even if jurisdiction had been arguable, D2's first statement should have been excluded because police conduct effectively denied access to counsel undermining an infor…
14 Jun 2001
The trial judge did not err in finding D2 guilty on the evidence; the Belgian consulate letter established the passport was genuinely issued but contained a false photograph and therefore was a false or unlawfully obtained travel document rather than a 'forgery' under the Crimes Ordinance; in the interests of justice the Court received the fresh evidence and amended the charges by substituting 'false' for 'forged' and upheld the convictions as amended; sentence of 2 years 9 months concurrent was appropriate and is upheld.
11 Apr 2000
The Court held that the judge's Reasons for Verdict sufficiently justified acceptance of the prosecution evidence and inferences; the refusal of an adjournment for transcripts was proper; amendments to charges 2,4 and 5 did not prejudice the applicant but were improperly worded and must be substituted by charges alleging theft of 'property belonging to another'; convictions on the remaining counts stand and substitution under s83A and s83 is appropriate.
10 Mar 1999
By majority (Mayo J.A. and Stuart-Moore J.A.) the convictions were upheld. The majority concluded that, on the totality of the evidence and by a broad remedial construction of the statute, the apprentice jockeys fell within employment/public servant definitions for s.4, that the trial judge did not improperly 'descend into the arena' in proposing or permitting amendments and that the evidence was sufficient to support findings of offers of advantage; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and convictions and sentence upheld. Nazareth V-P dissented, holding the prosecution had not proved employm…