21 Apr 2022
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's factual findings that the six receipts were false and that the appellant acted dishonestly with the intention to deceive his employer were supported by the evidence; the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and there was no demonstrable error warranting interference on appeal.
27 Nov 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to accept the combined force of PW1's identification and the CCTV footage that the appellant was driving TS1083 and that she did not stop when she could have done so at a low speed; the discrepancies urged by the appellant did not render the conviction unsafe.
31 Oct 2017
Court accepted the police evidence that the vehicle parked on an unlined passage narrowed the available space such that larger vehicles could be obstructed; a minor discrepancy in lamp‑post numbering did not invalidate the fixed penalty notice because the notice need only indicate the approximate location; prior non‑enforcement did not excuse the offence; thus the conviction was upheld.
26 Oct 2015
The court held that although the trial judge erred in law by applying a higher evidential standard than required to the s274(1) statutory defence, the correct interpretation is that the accused must 'produce evidence' sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt (per Ng Po On analysis). Applying the correct standard to the evidence, the appellant's account was not credible, the defence was not made out, and the prosecution had established guilt; accordingly the conviction was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
9 May 2013
The conviction was safe because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant received the enforcement notice, admitted non-compliance, and failed to comply after the appeal was concluded; the substantive reasonableness of the notice is not a permissible criminal defence and contested matters about the notice must be pursued through the statutory appeal or judicial review processes. The sentence was excessive in the circumstances and was reduced from HK$5,000 to HK$2,500 given the appellant's financial position.
3 Dec 2010
The court accepted the police testimony as credible, held that the absence of fingerprints did not negate possession, found no inconsistency in the prosecution account, and concluded the grounds of appeal were without merit; therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
5 Mar 2010
The magistrate's credibility findings were entitled to deference because he observed witnesses first hand, the inconsistencies were immaterial to the core issue, the defence alibi evidence was rejected as untruthful, and the magistrate did not err in commenting that the appellant offered no personal explanation; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Mar 2007
The police evidence and other testimony established that by the time of police arrival the appellants continued fighting in a manner not reasonably necessary and thus self-defence had ceased, supporting convictions for unlawful fighting (affray).
14 Jun 2001
The magistrate's finding of joint enterprise and the Appellant's knowledge and participation was a permissible inference from the evidence; credibility findings by the trial magistrate are entitled to deference and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify appellate interference; the sentence of 12 months was within proper sentencing principle and not manifestly excessive.