1 Jun 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any real prospect of success, failed to point to any error in the Court of Appeal's refusal to extend time, did not demonstrate that the appeal raised issues of public or widespread importance under s.22(1)(b), and did not comply with procedural directions, so the matter did not warrant determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
27 May 2022
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's short delay (about one month) was unexplained and unjustified, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's well-reasoned adverse credibility findings and absence of identified legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; accordingly it was futile to extend time.
17 Dec 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and failed to raise any reasonably arguable ground or any basis under the 'otherwise' limb.
15 Oct 2019
The Appeal Committee declined to exercise its discretion to order joinder because counsel for the appellant and the respondents could present full and comprehensive submissions and the Intended Intervener's participation was not necessary to give the Court a more rounded picture
28 Aug 2019
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484 and there was no other basis to grant leave under that provision.
16 Aug 2019
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Notice of Motion did not identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and there was no basis to grant leave under the "or otherwise" limb.
26 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, relied on points not previously argued before the Court of Appeal, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
15 Sept 2016
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in making an insufficiently particularised and potentially unsafe identification finding from the CCTV, an error that may have affected other cumulative findings; a transcript of the identifying witness was ordered into the appeal bundle to allow proper consideration on appeal.
1 Aug 2011
The application to stay execution was dismissed because the defendant failed to show that his appeal has a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge's credibility findings were justified and there was no valid foundation to grant a stay; costs were awarded against the defendant.
27 Sept 1999
The Court exercised its discretion to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event because the respondent's acquiescence and failure to appeal the original judgment encouraged the appeals and the respondent's success resulted from this Court's view rather than its own arguments; accordingly no order as to costs was made.