25 May 2005
The Magistrate's findings on identity, credibility and understanding of the Deportation Order were entitled to deference; the evidence supported convictions for unlawful gambling and breach of the permanent Deportation Order; the sentences imposed were not excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Aug 1996
Section 6 of the Gambling Ordinance is a strict liability offence, not absolute; by necessary implication the statute admits a defence where the accused proves on the balance of probabilities an honest and reasonably held belief or reasonable excuse making the conduct innocent; therefore s6 meets Article 5(1) standards and the magistrate erred in concluding it was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
24 Feb 1994
Section 19(2) of the Gambling Ordinance does not violate BORO s8 art11 because the presumption that a person found in or escaping from a gambling establishment was gambling satisfies the Sin Yau-ming tests: there is a rational connection where the accused is in the room used for gambling and the presumption is proportionate and necessary to combat illegal gambling; conviction upheld. Separately, in light of exceptional delay and prejudice, the Court allowed the out‑of‑time appeal against sentence, rescinded activation of the prior suspended sentence and ordered immediate release, treating 17…
22 Jun 1983
Convictions were unsafe because essential evidential and procedural safeguards were not observed: multiple written statements and exhibits were admitted without compliance with s65B formalities or without recorded admissions under s65C, Inspector Ong's statement contained inseparable hearsay, photographs and exhibit identifications were not properly grounded to the raid, and the prosecution failed to prove presence/participation of most appellants beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly convictions were set aside and a retrial ordered for the 1st appellant.
26 Nov 1982
The presumption under s19(1)(a) and (c) properly arose: police entry authorised under s23 was wilfully delayed by occupants who knew police sought entry, and betting slips were seen in the appellant's hand while she was on the premises; intercepted betting calls were properly taken into account; magistrate's credibility findings were permissible and sustained the conviction.