4 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge’s decision to admit the videotaped cautioned interview and to accept police evidence was adequately supported by the record and the judge’s reasoning when read in context; the absence of a more granular, separate exposition did not constitute an error of law under Okafor and related authorities and did not render the convictions unsafe.
11 Jun 2020
The judge properly found that after the first incident and warning the appellant knew the risk that the child could protrude and fall through the window, had reasonable means to prevent recurrence (use cot, place obstacles, keep window closed) but did not adopt them; therefore the elements of s.27(1) were satisfied and the conviction was safe; the trial judge's reasons were adequate and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Apr 2018
The appeal is dismissed. The magistrate reasonably refused the costs application because the appellant admitted in recorded interview and by documentary conduct to using old prescriptions and obtaining backdated prescriptions and receipts such that some submitted claims were not factually correct; that conduct amounted to self‑incriminatory admissions and had misled the prosecution and justified denying costs; the magistrate did not err in procedure or in concluding there were sufficient reasons to refuse costs.
23 Aug 2011
The convictions were unsafe because the trial judge did not adequately identify and analyse specific inconsistencies and materially adverse indicia in the complainant's evidence nor explain why those matters did not undermine the central allegations; accordingly leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed and convictions and sentences were set aside.
12 Jan 2010
The applicant was lawfully committed because the magistrate correctly applied s.10(6)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance by assessing only whether a prima facie case existed; the absence of the witness from the USA and the presence of hearsay did not, on the evidence, destroy or very severely undermine the case and did not render the committal unlawful; the duty of candour requires disclosure only of matters that would destroy or very severely undermine the requesting state's case; consequently the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
13 Apr 2007
Conviction quashed because the magistrate's findings were unsafe and unsatisfactory: the magistrate failed to analyse material discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, gave inadequate reasons on crucial matters (notably recent complaint and corroboration), and relied improperly on demeanour; notwithstanding quashing, a re-trial was ordered because the prosecution's case remained sufficiently strong and public interest dictated a new trial.
2 Apr 1993
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge made a key factual finding (that the applicant sold at a fraction of value) unsupported by the evidence and failed to evaluate the applicant's good character and age in accordance with the Berrada principles; these flaws undermined the inferences drawn about knowledge and rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting allowance of the appeal.
8 Feb 1990
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge accepted straightforward police evidence and made a clear credibility finding against the applicant and his witness; the appellate court will not overturn that credibility-based factual conclusion despite the trial judge's use of emotive language, and therefore refused leave to appeal the conviction while adjourning sentence for a background report.
28 Dec 1989
Leave to appeal was refused for both applicants because the appellate court concluded the trial judge's reliance on the constable's identification, the cash found on the 3rd defendant and the concealed gloves was reasonable, and that in the context of the totality of the evidence the 4th defendant's cautioned statement did not afford a credible innocent explanation that would have led to a different verdict; the evidence did not demonstrate that no reasonable judge could have relied on the witnesses.
17 Jul 1987
The Court held the trial judge did not err: the Sergeant's evidence was admissible under s.20(3) and sufficiently established on the material before the judge, the judge was entitled to accept aspects of that evidence without addressing every inconsistency in writing because he had seen and heard the witness, the judge's awareness of victims' motives meant no further express danger warning was required, convictions were confirmed (leave to appeal convictions refused), and on sentence the Court reduced D1 to 18 months and D4 to 3 years to correct excesses and ensure parity, to be served concur…