20 Mar 2026
The application for a certificate under s32 is refused because the matters advanced are factual disputes or the application of settled legal principles to the facts; the court did not accept the applicant's favourable factual hypothesis and, on the evidence properly found, an inference of intent to threaten was open and the statutory threshold for s32 was not met.
21 Sept 2011
The magistrate's inference that the appellant was one of the two men who followed the complainant was a permissible inference from the proved facts and the transcript did not demonstrate that the magistrate's view was unsafe; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
2 Dec 2005
The Court upheld the conviction because the judge's findings as to credibility and the cumulative evidence permitted only the reasonable inference that the applicant knew the Visa card was forged and acted in concert with D1; the Court also held the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was properly calibrated to deterrence and the applicant's role.
10 Mar 2004
The magistrate's finding of loitering was unsupported because it relied on an inference drawn from evidence of the appellant that the magistrate had rejected; loitering was not proved and therefore the conviction/sentence could not stand.
11 Jul 2003
The magistrate's acceptance of PW1's evidence that altered copies were received from the appellant and the finding that selective deletion could not be a mechanical error supported the only reasonable inference that the appellant himself altered the hospital notes; the appellate court found no error in those factual findings or inferences and dismissed the appeal.
28 Jan 2003
The Court upheld the trial judge's assessment of credibility and inference of guilt because the objective indicia — immediate payment to the applicant when the letter of credit proceeds were credited, lack of documentary support for the applicant's debt explanation, the applicant's conduct after allegations arose, and the apology/compensation letter — provided a cogent basis to conclude he conspired to procure payment by means of a forged bill of lading; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
9 Jul 2002
Given the totality of circumstances — absence of any legitimate claim to money, the statement that they had not previously caused trouble coupled with reference to a 'big brother' associated with triads — the trial judge was entitled to infer menaces; that inference was open on the evidence and the appeal against conviction fails.
19 Sept 2001
Leave to appeal was granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb only because it was reasonably arguable that evidence existed from which the jury might have drawn adverse inferences without being directed that such inferences must be the only reasonable ones, and that the judge failed to give a necessary cautionary note where the complainant's credibility was crucial; the point of law limb was rejected as the proposition was established law and raised no real controversy for the Court of Final Appeal.
17 Jan 2001
Appeal allowed and conviction set aside because the deputy magistrate relied on factual findings that were mistaken (including mistranslated interview evidence) and failed to address the crucial mens rea element; the conviction based on an 'irresistible inference' was therefore unsafe.
9 Nov 2000
Magistrate's assessment that the appellant's account was not credible and that the only reasonable inference was theft was unflawed; given the $75,000 valuation and breach of trust the six months' imprisonment sentence was within proper judicial discretion, so both conviction and sentence were upheld.