16 Jan 2026
Having reheard the matter on the court‑prima facie evidence and pre‑sentencing reports, and having considered the appellant's age, prior convictions and that he was already sentenced to a training centre for a related matter, the magistrate did not err in principle and the sentence of detention in a training centre was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
28 Oct 2025
The court affirmed that 6 months was an appropriate starting point for each offence given repeated conduct, weapon use and that the victim was a witness, and that a small deduction of 3 days for compensation was warranted; the two offences should run consecutively as they were committed on different dates and involved different elements. However, the trial judge erred in ordering full consecutive execution with the earlier 5‑month sentence without adequately quantifying how much should be concurrent; on totality review the Court ordered 2 months of the prior 5‑month sentence to run concurrent…
17 Apr 2025
Photographic and witness evidence proved the appellant intentionally threw eggs and tomatoes causing widespread staining (approximately 1m x 2m) that temporarily impaired the government's building appearance and use; temporary impairment qualifies as 'damage', the appellant had no lawful excuse, and he had the requisite intent or recklessness — conviction must be upheld on retrial standard.
11 Mar 2025
Appellate court, on rehearing, concluded prosecution proved each element of criminal damage beyond reasonable doubt; trial judge legitimately rejected appellant's accounts as inconsistent and implausible, properly weighed documentary and CCTV evidence and P6/P7, and correctly held appellant lacked a lawful excuse; appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed.
7 Feb 2025
The court exercised its discretion to terminate the appeal because the appellant died, there was no one to continue the appeal or act for him, the sentence and compensation order were not excessive or contrary to law (the compensation was reasonable given the phone was unusable and installment arrangements were agreed), and termination would not prejudice public interest or other persons.
6 Feb 2025
The trial judge correctly applied the two-stage special/general issues procedure, properly excluded the on-scene oral statement but found the P6 meeting record voluntary after considering the appellant's demeanour, lack of medical/expert proof of incapacity, and corroborating CCTV; the duress defence was rejected as inherently implausible on the evidence; therefore the prosecution proved the offence of criminal damage beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence of 9 months (with HKD 500 compensation) was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.
4 Feb 2025
The application is refused because the appellant only reiterated factual and evidential complaints already rejected at trial and on appeal and did not raise any point of law of great and general importance under s32(2) Cap 484.
20 Dec 2024
On re‑trial standard review the High Court found the combined evidence — PW1's credible testimony, the P3 video and screenshots, photos of the damaged phone and the appellant's cautioned statement P5 — proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the phone to fall and damaged it and that he acted either with intent to disable the phone or recklessly as to whether it would be damaged; no lawful excuse (self‑defence) was established, so the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
13 Dec 2024
The applicant waived his right of silence by replying under caution for criminal damage, so the judge legitimately considered his failure to mention the pitchfork as part of assessing credibility and the self-defence claim; the issue raised was an application of settled principles and did not constitute a point of law of great and general importance, therefore certification was refused.
22 Nov 2024
Trial evidence including CCTV and admissions established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant removed the speed hump and cut the ropes; those items belonged to the estate/management or were under their control; removal deprived the speed hump and ropes of their function and therefore constituted criminal damage; the appellant did not have a lawful excuse under s64 because there was no immediate necessity and reasonable alternatives or civil remedies existed; fresh evidence was not admitted and credibility findings were properly open to the trial judge, therefore convictions are upheld.