23 Mar 2022
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge reasonably accepted the police witness's identification and credibility, rejected accident and self‑defence defenses on the evidence, and the prosecution proved both offences beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence of detention in a rehabilitation centre was proportionate given the facts and public order considerations.
29 May 2014
The High Court held the trial judge properly analysed the evidence and that it was open to conclude the vehicle and vending setup could 'likely cause obstruction'; the defence had addressed the alternative basis at trial so amending the particulars to 'likely to cause obstruction' caused no unfairness; the trial judge's acceptance of the prosecution witness's evidence and factual findings were entitled to deference; accordingly the convictions and fines were safe and must be upheld.
15 Dec 2009
Recusal refused because a fair-minded informed observer would not conclude a real possibility of bias given differences between the prior case and the instant appeal and the role of a single judge on rehearing; the conviction was upheld because the appellant at times completely blocked Battery Path and, on the facts and in light of YEUNG May Wan, his obstruction exceeded the bounds of reasonable exercise of the right to demonstrate; the appropriate disposal of sentence was substitution of immediate imprisonment with 180 hours community service as a proportionate, constructive sanction.
12 Jun 2001
Magistrate's affirmative credibility finding for the Assistant Hawker Control Officer, supported by direct evidence of an exchange for money, possession of bags causing obstruction, and appellant's attempted concealment of money, meant there was ample and properly admitted evidence to justify convictions for obstruction under s4A Cap.228 and hawking without a licence under s83B Cap.132; appellate court will not overturn such credibility-based findings absent clear error.
17 May 1996
The magistrate was entitled to accept the sergeant's evidence and to convict the appellant of hawking and causing an obstruction; however s.86(1) confers a discretionary power to seize equipment and in the circumstances the forfeiture of the van was disproportionate and unsupported by evidence that the van was used in the hawking, therefore the forfeiture order must be quashed and the van returned to its owner.