29 Oct 2024
Because the appellant repeatedly failed to attend and deliberately delayed prosecution of the appeal over an extended period, and because the conviction and sentence were found to be safe, the court dismissed the appeal, ordered forfeiture of the HK$5,000 bail and issued a warrant for the appellant's arrest.
16 Dec 2022
The lift/elevator lobby at the residential building was not a 'public place' as defined in Cap.599G because access was limited to residents, invitees or permitted persons and not to the public at large; accordingly the appellant could not be convicted under the regulation for participating in a prohibited 'public' group gathering and the conviction and sentence were quashed.
6 May 2022
The appellate court found the prosecution proved assault causing bodily harm beyond reasonable doubt and there was no demonstrable error in the trial judge's credibility findings or fact-finding; therefore the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
15 Mar 2022
On full review the court found material discrepancies, implausibilities and unaddressed issues in the prosecution case such that the prosecution had not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.
21 Jan 2022
The judge's reply, which re-emphasised that the jury must decide the case on the evidence they find proved, focus on the elements of the offence and apply the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, adequately addressed the jury's question; a Liberato direction had already been given in the summing-up and no repetition was necessary. The peripheral discrepancies identified did not create a substantial risk of miscarriage; therefore the conviction and sentence were safe and must be upheld.
1 Dec 2020
The High Court held the magistrate erred by failing to properly consider, analyse and weigh the appellant's testimony and alternative innocent explanations; because the evidence did not permit only one irresistible inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt the conviction and sentence were unsafe and were quashed.
18 Nov 2020
The court refused to admit the three documents as fresh evidence because they did not satisfy the Mahabobur Rahman criteria, accepted the trial judge's credibility findings (that PW1's account was reliable and self‑defence was not established), and concluded there was no basis to disturb the conviction or the imposed fine of HK$1,000.
29 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because there was a reasonable argument that the trial in absentia may have been wrongly conducted and the respondent did not resist the application; the applicant's late filing was justified by his lack of knowledge of the conviction until arrest in 2019. The court directed that the application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time be heard at the same time as the appeal against conviction.
4 Nov 2019
Leave to appeal refused because none of the grounds advanced by D2 or the sole ground advanced by D1 were reasonably arguable on the material: the judge's summing-up and directions were adequate, complaints about counsel were not particularised and LPP was not waived, D1 did not meet the threshold to be treated as a supergrass and the 50% discount given was appropriate under established authorities.
29 May 2019
Given the cash-intensive account, deposits and near-immediate withdrawals, total deposits far exceeding reported income and absence of assets, a reasonable person objectively would conclude the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe the funds represented proceeds of an indictable offence; the dealing was continuous and the conviction was safe, so leave to appeal is refused.