6 Feb 2026
Appellate judge conducted a rehearing of all evidence including CCTV, found PW1 credible and discrepancies immaterial or satisfactorily explained, rejected appellant's account as implausible in light of her conduct on CCTV and other evidence, and concluded the prosecution proved theft beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction and fine were affirmed.
9 Dec 2025
The accepted evidence (employment application P1, interview record P4 and employer's testimony) established that the appellant knowingly answered falsely about prior convictions to secure employment; the employer would not have hired anyone with convictions and relied on that answer; the appellant's claimed misunderstanding was implausible; therefore all elements of fraud were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence of six months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and a compensation order for the wages obtained were appropriate given prior convictions and lack of remorse.
26 Sept 2025
On rehearing the court accepted the magistrate's credibility findings and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew his account was closed and dishonestly issued the cheque to induce the complainant to wait for payment; accordingly the conviction under s18B(1)(b) Theft Ordinance is upheld.
20 Aug 2025
The court, on a rehearing, accepted the trial judge's credibility findings that PW1 was honest and the appellant's accounts were inconsistent and implausible; given the physical evidence (the ATM card affixed to a bank letter) and the circumstances, the only irresistible inferences were that the appellant knew the card did not belong to him and dishonestly appropriated it, and the interview/meeting record was voluntary — therefore the evidence proved theft beyond reasonable doubt and the two‑month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
1 Aug 2025
The court refused certification under s32(2) Cap 484 because the First Question did not postulate a point of law arising from the judgment nor was of great and general importance, and the Second Question was not properly raised at trial, lacked evidential foundation and was not of general importance; the judge's impugned remarks did not affect the verdicts and, even if the irregularity were material, the proviso to s83(1) Cap 221 could properly be applied in appropriate cases.
8 Jul 2025
On rehearing the court, after reviewing CCTV and witness evidence, accepted the Crown's case that the appellant picked up P2(1) from the shelf, did not return it and left without paying, and that this established appropriation with dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge's conviction for theft of that one book was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
23 May 2025
The court admitted the WhatsApp conversation as fresh evidence and, on rehearing the whole case, concluded the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the requisite dishonest intent when issuing the cheque; conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed with penalty stayed.
16 May 2025
The judgment was not irregular because the 2nd Defendant deliberately evaded service by instructing her sister to return mail sent to the record address, so service was deemed good; the pleaded facts and evidence supported findings of dishonesty and breach of the good faith clause; there was no real prospect of success on appeal; accordingly the setting aside summons and the extension of time to appeal were refused and costs were awarded against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
1 Apr 2025
Appellate court accepted the trial judge's credibility findings supported by CCTV footage and contemporaneous medical records, concluded the defence psychiatric evidence was unreliable, and found the prosecution proved dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction and sentence were upheld.
24 Feb 2025
Leave to appeal against conviction for D2 and D4 refused because the judge correctly assessed the evidence, applied the Ghosh test and permissibly drew reasonable inferences from the circumstantial and documentary evidence; leave to appeal against sentence granted because sentencing differentiation, assessment of loss and mitigation raised reasonably arguable issues.