22 Oct 2024
Applying the rehearing standard in Hui Lai Ki, the Court reviewed CCTV, store layout, witness evidence and the meeting record and concluded the only reasonable inference was that the appellant intentionally selected and concealed sixteen items worth HK$866.7 with dishonest intent; the conviction and the HK$3,000 fine are therefore upheld.
19 Mar 2020
The trial judge did not err: witness evidence identified the twelve H&M items, the appellant's conduct and her spontaneous remark supported knowledge of unpaid goods and dishonesty, the prosecution proved continuity between the items and P2 so the chain of custody was not shown to be broken, the proposed fresh evidence was irrelevant or obtainable earlier and therefore inadmissible, and any delay in disclosure did not prejudice the defence; accordingly conviction is safe and appeal dismissed.
8 Jan 2020
The appellate court refused leave because the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and the applicant's admissions; there was no evidence that the confession was unreliable or that the complainant had a mental disorder; the applicant failed to rebut the prosecution case and there was no real prospect of success on appeal.
31 Jan 2018
The Court held the trial judge gave adequate directions including majority verdict guidance and expressly permitted the jury to take the time they required and to notify the court if in difficulty; there was no evidence jurors felt time pressure, were fatigued or otherwise coerced, and therefore no real danger the 5-2 majority verdict was unsafe. The application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
16 May 2012
The court allowed the out‑of‑time application but dismissed the sentence appeal because the 15‑month immediate custodial sentence was within the ordinary sentencing range for pickpocketing given the nature of the offence, the reliable CCTV and admission evidence, and the appellant's limited mitigation and prior record.
11 Jun 1996
The court held that the chain of custody was established by identification of the sealed tamper‑proof envelope and the Government Chemist certificate, the magistrate properly evaluated credibility and evidence, and therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
11 Jul 1995
The identification evidence was very poor and the supporting admission evidence was inherently flawed; applying Turnbull the judge ought to have withdrawn the case from the jury, therefore the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
10 Sept 1993
The jury accepted the police officer's evidence that the appellant made the oral admission; the trial judge gave proper directions including that an excluded written statement be disregarded; nothing raised on appeal showed the conviction was unsafe, so the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
19 May 1987
Given the applicants' youth and the jury's finding (manslaughter rather than murder) indicating they did not foresee knives would probably be used, the original eight year sentences were excessive and justifiably reduced to five years each.
27 Oct 1982
The conviction was upheld because the evidence linked the appellant to the robbery (precise sum matching stolen money found on him, admission after caution, police identification and items in taxi) and the allegations of police framing or failure to investigate the alibi were unsupported; the trial judge's directions were proper and the jury's verdict was safe.