27 May 2004
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate's detailed findings on credibility and fact were within his discretion, no substantive grounds of insufficiency, unfair trial or bias were established, and an appellate court will not re‑try evidence it was not in a position to assess directly.
25 Mar 2003
The convictions were supported by ample evidence and the Magistrate legitimately increased the starting point for sentence because of the appellant's long history of similar offences and absence of mitigation; the resulting consecutive sentences (3 months and 9 months totalling 12 months) were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, so both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
8 Feb 1991
Convictions were affirmed but, having regard to admissions and mitigation and the improper or routine exercise of powers, the court substituted absolute discharges for the offences of collecting money without a permit (s.4(17) Summary Offences Ordinance) and failing to produce proof of identity (s.17C(3) Immigration Ordinance); the conviction and fine for obstructing a police officer (s.23 Summary Offences Ordinance) were upheld because the obstruction was more than minimal.
21 Jun 1984
The magistrate's failure to make the required signed findings of fact under s114(b) in the context of conflicting evidence made the conviction unsafe; the appellate court therefore allowed the appeal and, exercising its discretion to avoid remittal given the minor nature of the offences, delay and cost, quashed the conviction and ordered refund of any fine.
On the accepted evidence the officer was acting in execution of his statutory duty and the appellant's intemperate, unduly persistent and unreasonable conduct amounted to wilful obstruction of the officer in the execution of his duty; the magistrate's credibility findings were open to him and the sentence was not excessive.