27 Feb 2025
On re-hearing the court found the trial judge's detailed credibility findings and inferences were open on the evidence, the medical and eyewitness evidence coherently supported that the appellant struck and pushed the complainant causing grievous bodily harm, and therefore the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
24 Oct 2024
Conviction was upheld (appellant withdrew challenge). Appropriate starting point was 10 months after assessing seriousness and comparable cases; applying the one-fifth guilty plea discount reduced it to 8 months, and in fairness a further one-month discretionary reduction was made (consistent with the magistrate's earlier adjustment), resulting in a final sentence of 7 months' imprisonment.
9 Jan 2023
The appellate court concluded the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and analysis, including medical reports corroborating serious injury and a rational basis for rejecting the appellant's account; there was no error of principle or irrationality in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt and no basis to interfere with the 6‑month sentence which was within proper discretionary range.
21 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because the conflict between DW4's evidence and the prosecution witnesses was reasonably arguable such that the safety of the conviction could be questioned, and because credible fresh post-sentence evidence relevant to mitigation was available to challenge the sentence.
29 Mar 2022
Bail pending appeal was granted because the appeal raised arguable issues regarding the trial judge's handling of material conflicting evidence (DW4) affecting culpability and because, given remission and COVID-19 related adjournments (GAP), there was a real risk the applicant would serve a substantial part of her sentence before the appeal was heard; accordingly bail was justified on both the merits and time grounds subject to stringent conditions.
9 Feb 2022
The magistrate erred by failing to procure and properly weigh up-to-date medical evidence and the Victim Impact Statement showing likely permanent ocular injury and psychological harm; the offence was of high gravity (targeted, sustained attack on the victim's eyes) rendering the Community Service Order manifestly inadequate. The appropriate starting point was 15 months' imprisonment, reduced by one-third for guilty plea and further reduced for delay, proceedings history and time served under the CSO, resulting in a substituted sentence of 6 months' imprisonment.
17 Jul 2020
法院拒絕接納上訴人提交的事後精神病醫療報告，認為該等證據不符合接納新證據的要件，且原審記錄顯示辯方於初審時可供使用的資料已被考慮且上訴人於事發時主觀上認為其行為有法可依；憑閉路電視及車站職員證供，裁判官合理地推斷上訴人故意或罔顧風險致使受害人受傷，因此維持對侵害人身罪（第19條）之定罪及原判處100小時社會服務令的處分。
28 Mar 2019
Bail pending appeal was properly refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable case to be argued on appeal; the sentencing judge was entitled to impose six months' imprisonment for driving through a red light and causing grievous bodily harm and the sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive.
27 Feb 2019
The Court refused leave and dismissed the appeals because the stay application for illegal rendition was unsustainable given established mutual assistance practice and prosecution's reasonable steps to secure evidence; the prosecution's disclosure obligations were met as far as reasonable steps allowed and absence of GDPSD witnesses did not render confessions inadmissible; the challenged confessions were left to the jury by tactical election and not withdrawn as no clear error was shown; re-enactments were properly admitted; and the 19-year sentence for Count 3 was not manifestly excessive gi…
7 May 2018
The magistrate was entitled to find on the evidence that the appellant was not acting in self-defence but launched an attack that inflicted grievous bodily harm; the conviction was safe because the prosecution proved every element beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence of 11 months imprisonment (starting point 12 months reduced by one month for clear record) was within the proper range and not excessive, therefore both conviction and sentence were affirmed.