4 Jun 2025
Bail pending appeal was granted because the court was satisfied the merits ground was met (reasonable prospect of success on appeal against conviction) and the time ground was met (substantial part of sentence would be served before disposal), while the identified risk of reoffending could be managed by imposing appropriate bail conditions; risk of absconding was not found to be decisive.
22 May 2024
The magistrate's decision to forfeit the bail was upheld because the appellant failed to provide credible, contemporaneous or corroborating evidence (e.g. test results, medical reports dated to the reporting day or timely notifications) to establish a reasonable or sufficient excuse for failing to report; on rehearing the High Court agreed the magistrate properly exercised discretion under s.52(3A)(b).
21 Apr 2023
The detention had become unlawful because, although prima facie authorised by a Removal Order and pursued for removal, the existence of contemporaneous criminal proceedings and a bail condition preventing the applicant from leaving Hong Kong meant removal could not be effected within a reasonable time; consequently continued detention was unreasonable and the applicant was ordered released on recognizance acceptable to the Director.
31 May 2022
The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal because it was reasonably arguable that the judge below misapplied the established principles for granting a permanent stay and because the appeal raises a question of law of great and general importance about whether bail conditions may be set so as to render an intended prosecution appeal nugatory; accordingly leave was granted and the appeal was fixed for hearing.
22 Dec 2021
The Court granted bail pending appeal subject to six modest conditions because although the risk of non‑return was low it was not nil; the prosecution's conditions were sufficiently narrow and proportionate to provide assurance of attendance without imposing undue burden, and therefore were appropriate to secure bail.
1 Apr 2021
Having considered all materials and submissions, the court was satisfied that the stringent NSL Art 42(2) threshold was met because there were sufficient grounds to believe the Respondent would not continue to commit acts endangering national security; accordingly the bail granted by the Chief Magistrate was endorsed and the Applicant's review application was refused.
2 Mar 2020
The court will not impose live CCTV monitoring as a bail condition because it is inappropriate and undesirable: it raises significant privacy concerns, it is impracticable to require or expect police to monitor continuous CCTV footage, and it does not materially assist in preventing absconding beyond established measures such as curfew; accordingly the CCTV condition is rejected and the bail application remains refused.
8 Oct 2019
The court held that the travel prohibition should remain but could be revisited on evidence of training overseas; the curfew was reduced from 21:00–06:00 to 22:00–06:00 to accommodate study needs while preserving the preventive purpose; the geographic exclusion for Tuen Mun was maintained but qualified so the applicant may enter the demarcated area provided he gives at least 24 hours' notice to the Ma On Shan duty officer with reasons and supporting documents and, if accompanied by counsel, details of the legal representative, thereby balancing necessity to prevent reoffending with proportion…
22 Oct 2018
The Court held the applicant's contention based on s.18 and the Inglis authority was at least reasonably arguable and the judge below erred in refusing leave without addressing s.18; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was to be granted though the court did not decide the substantive merits.
28 Sept 2018
The application to vary bail to permit overseas travel was dismissed because the respondent failed to discharge the burden of showing highly exceptional and compelling reasons to displace the strong policy interest in requiring appellants to remain within the jurisdiction pending appeal; the proposed purposes could be achieved by alternative means and did not outweigh the public interest in the due administration of justice.