24 Oct 2025
The trial judge provided adequate reasons and engaged with the principal criticisms of the complainant's evidence; his credibility findings were open on the evidence and the applicant's grounds did not show an arguable case that the conviction was unsafe, therefore leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
20 Jan 2023
On the balance of probabilities the Court found the alleged Oral Agreement did not exist, the transfer of 100,000,000 shares was procured by duress, coercion and intimidation by agents of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff proved his claim and is entitled to damages of HK$135,000,000 plus interest; the 1st Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed and indemnity costs awarded against him.
1 Apr 2022
The magistrate's refusal to permit recall and cross-examination of the complainant on her mitigation letter (fresh evidence) was a material procedural irregularity that could have affected the assessment of the appellant's mens rea; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.
1 Apr 2022
The Court held that most grounds as pleaded were not reasonably arguable: grounds alleging prejudice from Mr Soo's death and an honest belief in the warrantability of the demand lacked evidential basis and were refused; the aggregate evidence (CCTV, phone records, messages, images) supported the judge's finding of a joint enterprise to blackmail. Leave to appeal was refused on conviction except that limited leave was granted to pursue a properly pleaded single ground challenging the sufficiency of evidence of the applicant's complicity in the joint enterprise; leave to appeal against sentence…
2 Apr 2020
On the balance of probabilities, applying the heightened scrutiny for grave allegations, the plaintiff failed to prove that he or any named third parties were intimidated or harassed by the pleaded Alleged Wrongful Acts, and failed to prove the defendant caused those acts; therefore the claim is dismissed and the interlocutory injunction is discharged.
19 Mar 2020
The Court refused renewal of leave and dismissed the appeals because the trial judge's acceptance of PW1 and PW2 was supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; the alleged non-disclosures were immaterial and did not create a real possibility of a different verdict; allegations of counsel incompetence lacked substance and were not pursued; and the applicants failed to comply with court directions such that renewal was not warranted.
26 Jul 2019
The convictions on Charges 3, 4 and 5 are upheld because independent extraneous facts — including the video transcript showing procurement of a false certificate, banker affirmations and cheques (one cashed by the applicant), substantial deposits into the applicant's account contemporaneous with meetings, the handwritten note (Exhibit P9) and connecting text messages, together with nurse testimony — sufficiently corroborated the complainant's account and supported the inference that the applicant knowingly participated in repeated blackmail schemes; the trial judge applied an appropriate appr…
23 Jul 2019
The court held the judge erred in adopting too high a starting point for this particular case; given the lesser gravity (one-off small demand, no violence, no loss, victim controlled situation, intoxication and surrender) an appropriate starting point was 21 months and after a one-third reduction for guilty plea the proper sentence is 14 months imprisonment, so the appeal is allowed and the 20-month sentence set aside and substituted accordingly.
25 Apr 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the sentencing judge adopted a starting point that was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle in this case; legal aid for the appeal was granted under Rule 12(3) Cap 221D.
13 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because none of the pleaded grounds were reasonably arguable: the trial judge's credibility findings were not plainly wrong, the non-disclosed material would not have created a real possibility of a different verdict, and the allegations of counsel incompetence lacked the necessary particularity and did not demonstrate flagrant incompetence.