17 Mar 2023
The court allowed the appellant's appeal with costs, assessed the reasonable costs at HKD 252,175 and disallowed item C2.5 (costs for drafting and finalising the statement of costs) because Practice Direction 14.3 para 13 requires a broad‑brush approach to summary assessment and no exception was warranted.
22 Aug 2012
The summing-up was unbalanced and unfair: the judge's comments effectively invited the jury to accept the complainant's account and reject the applicant's, and the judge failed to neutralize prejudicial matters raised by prosecuting counsel (destruction of evidence and flight) that were not part of the prosecution case; as a result the conviction was unsafe and had to be quashed and the sentence set aside.
6 Jan 1977
The conviction was unsafe and must be quashed because the Crown failed to call the material taxi driver witness and did not obtain a contemporaneous statement to rebut the appellant's version; in those circumstances the evidence was insufficient to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt despite the magistrate's disbelief of the appellant.
The appeal is allowed for the reasons given in Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 1968, such reasons forming the decisive basis for allowing this appeal.