8 May 2026
The application was refused because the matters raised are essentially factual disputes previously considered and determined at trial and on appeal and do not involve a point of law of great and general importance as required by s32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
17 Nov 2023
The trial judge properly found the arrest lawful on reasonable suspicion because the appellant failed to produce the Foodpanda app and other indicia supported suspicion; the judge accepted prosecution witnesses that the appellant struck the sergeant with his forehead causing injury; on that factual finding the conviction was safe; the 4-month sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness (assault to an important body part inside a police station) and the appellant's antecedents.
29 Sept 2022
Appeal against sentence was allowed because the sentencing judge potentially incorporated the assault on the police officer into the illegal assembly sentence (risk of double‑counting) and failed to address whether the appellant was properly to be treated as a joint participant in the attempted robbery based on the video evidence alone; those defects required leave to appeal and re‑consideration of sentence.
11 Apr 2022
The court refused the first consolidation (DCCC115/2021, DCCC112/2021, DCCC114/2021) because there were insufficient grounds to alter the earlier practical split and scheduled resources could not accommodate the proposed joint trial in the suggested period; the court granted the second consolidation (DCCC113/2021 and DCCC116/2021) because the cases raised similar issues largely centering on prosecution video evidence, suitable courtroom capacity was likely to be available by the proposed schedule, the additional burden on defendants and counsel was limited (estimated 40 days, modest increase)…
10 Sept 2021
上訴被駁回：法庭裁定裁判官在處理證供及索取精神科報告時之言論並不顯示在審訊階段存在偏見；其在審訊期間針對警員證供的詢問屬合理澄清，並無阻礙辯方或被告自我辯護；裁判官對拒納上訴人證供的理由充足且合邏輯，故上訴不能推翻定罪。
15 Apr 2021
The appeal is dismissed: the appellant failed to satisfy criteria for admitting fresh evidence because he did not adequately explain why the materials were not produced at trial and the new evidence would not have altered the outcome; the trial judge's acceptance of the police witnesses was reasonable and the one‑month immediate custodial sentence was appropriate and not excessive.
16 Jan 2017
Having admitted fresh, admissible evidence (the treating doctor and the appellant) the court concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant voluntarily and knowingly consumed a large quantity of alcohol despite being prescribed drugs and warned of risks, that the drugs were unlikely to have significant intoxicating effect some 20 hours after last dose, and therefore involuntary intoxication was not established; conviction was therefore upheld and the magistrate's decision sustained.
29 Aug 2016
The trial judge's credibility findings and assessment that the available video evidence was of insufficient quality to undermine witness testimony were entitled to deference and not irrational; the proffered new videos were not sufficiently different or decisive to satisfy tests for admission as fresh evidence and would not have altered the outcome; therefore convictions were safe and upheld. However, sentencing for all four appellants was excessive in context (age, background, potential non-custodial options) and appellate court set aside the custodial/reformatory orders and remitted for app…
3 Oct 2014
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably accepted the evidence of the three police witnesses, the appellant's explanations were implausible, the alleged inconsistencies were not sufficient to undermine credibility, absence of CCTV footage could not be relied on to overturn findings, and appellate deference to the trial judge's credibility assessments means the convictions and fines are safe.
30 May 2012
The appellate court held that while assaults on police officers are serious and usually attract immediate custodial sentences for deterrence, the appellant's status as a first offender with stable employment and other mitigating features rendered the two‑month immediate sentence excessive; the appropriate sentence is one month immediate imprisonment, so the sentencing appeal is allowed in part and the sentence reduced.