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.
9 Oct 2009
The conviction was upheld because the combined testimony of the victim and a second witness together with the CCTV footage provided sufficient evidence that the appellant's presence and conduct caused reasonable concern; the sentence was reduced because six months imprisonment was excessive for the offence as committed although a custodial, deterrent sentence was justified given prior sexual offending and the psychologist's assessment of high risk of reoffending; the appropriate sentence was held to be about two months and the appellant was to be released forthwith.
22 Apr 2008
The Court concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish the element of loitering (no adequate time or lingering shown); accordingly the conviction for loitering causing concern could not stand and was quashed; the charge was not amended on appeal because such amendment would be a major change requiring rehearing to protect the accused under s27.
23 Feb 2007
The application for habeas corpus is dismissed because the applicant was lawfully tried, convicted and sentenced by courts with jurisdiction, there is no lack of jurisdiction or uncertainty as to sentence, and habeas corpus does not serve as a collateral appeal from a valid conviction; the applicant must pursue available appeals.
12 Dec 2006
Convictions on all 15 counts were upheld because the letters and repeated protests objectively amounted to criminal intimidation and loitering causing justified concern to the complainant and independent evidence (witnesses and CCTV) established that the appellant knowingly made a false police report; the Basic Law does not protect conduct that constitutes criminal offences and statutory provisions were proportionate; sentencing requires adjustment under totality and proportionality and was reduced on appeal to an aggregate term specified below.
10 Jun 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the case turned on factual findings of the magistrate, the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms amounting to substantial and grave injustice, and no legal point of sufficient general importance was raised to justify a second criminal appeal.
24 May 2005
The magistrate was entitled to prefer PW1's direct oral evidence, and on the basis of witness credibility, proximity/timing shown by the floor plan and related exhibits, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant entered and loitered in the ladies toilet causing concern; identity was not in dispute so no identification parade was required; the conviction was therefore safe and the appeal is dismissed.
8 Nov 2003
The Magistrate, as primary fact-finder, accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the Appellant's; on findings that the Appellant followed the complainant, positioned himself behind her and held a camera-phone under her skirt for an appreciable time, his presence constituted loitering with a non-innocent purpose and caused reasonable concern, therefore the conviction under s.160(3) was legally sustainable and the appeal on conviction fails.
5 Sept 2003
The magistrate lawfully amended the charge under s.27, the amendment was not time‑barred, and the accepted primary eyewitness evidence plus the actual public intervention and ensuing struggle established that the appellant's conduct (attempting to photograph under a woman's skirt) constituted disorderly conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace; the magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable and the conviction was therefore safe.
5 Jan 2001
On the facts the three‑month custodial sentence for loitering causing concern under s160(3) was not excessive, but considering the appellant's family hardship, prior custody time and employment, the appropriate disposition was to suspend the three‑month term for three years so that it will be activated if he commits another offence within that period.