12 Aug 2022
Because the appellant's conviction was quashed on appeal and the appellant did not invite suspicion or otherwise cause the proceedings, the court awarded him the costs of the trial and the costs of the appeal; if the parties cannot agree the amount, the taxing officer is to assess the costs.
9 Mar 2015
The trial judge materially erred by treating admissible evidence of what was communicated to the applicant (notably Mr Palienko's evidence about documents and the rescission agreement) as hearsay and by failing to consider those grounds when applying the s25 test; that omission was a material irregularity, the proviso does not apply, and the conviction must be quashed.
15 Jan 2013
Conviction quashed because the magistrate made alternative findings and only one finding involved foresight; the finding that did not involve foresight cannot support recklessness, so the conviction was wrong in law.
14 Nov 2011
Because the conviction was quashed due to defects in direction to the jury and counsel's conduct, and because of the seriousness of the offence, the court held that public interest outweighs the hardship to the applicant and ordered a re-trial.
20 Jul 2000
The Court held that the Court of Final Appeal's conclusion in Ng Siu Chau that apprentices were neither employees nor agents of the Jockey Club forms part of the ratio decidendi and is binding; therefore the appellant was not an agent of the Club and his conviction under s.9(1)(a) must be quashed.
8 May 1998
The magistrate's pervasive, leading questioning amounted to entering the arena and created the appearance of bias such that the trial was unfair; the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed; no retrial ordered given the minor nature of the offence and the appellant's age.
12 Feb 1998
The conviction and sentence on the B charge are quashed because the charge was incorrectly laid and the prosecution conceded error; the court declines to exercise its Section 119G power to substitute a conviction for breach of condition of stay; the 12‑month sentence on the A charge for possession of another's identity card is upheld as within proper judicial discretion.
8 Oct 1997
Because the magistrate accepted PW1's evidence but failed to make the necessary specific findings as to the nature of the monies (an essential ingredient) and did not address or resolve identified weaknesses and inconsistencies in PW1's testimony—relying instead on demeanour—the conviction was unsafe; the appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
3 Jun 1997
The conviction was unsustainable because the summons charged failure to comply with the demand made on 29 May 1996 which was not served on the appellant; service occurred only on 5 June 1996 so the appellant could not have been guilty of the charged offence.
5 Feb 1997
The magistrate failed to consider the non‑service of the s.68 notice, the prosecution produced no evidence to show absence of prejudice and thus failed to discharge the burden of proof; accordingly the conviction could not stand and was quashed.