11 Jul 2025
On rehearing of all evidence the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had unlawfully occupied a public footpath with goods causing obstruction; the trial magistrate's findings were open to the court and the evidence supported conviction, so the appeal against conviction must be dismissed.
24 May 2024
The High Court accepted the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the unedited CCTV evidence showing the appellant intentionally obstructed a government road, causing traffic disruption for over half an hour without lawful excuse; on that basis the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the fine of HK$8,000 was a proportionate sentence, so both conviction and sentence were upheld.
22 Apr 2022
The Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the police officer had an uninterrupted, clear view of the appellant and properly identified him; any minor inconsistencies and the video uncertainties did not undermine the identification; the judge had considered identification issues adequately and the 55‑day immediate sentence was justified by the context, including public danger and deterrence.
5 Dec 2014
The appeal was allowed because, on the evidence available, the custodial element (even suspended) was disproportionate: the occupation (30 sqm) and available particulars about the fish tank and placement did not demonstrate sufficient aggravation to justify a custodial sentence for a first offender with a low risk of reoffending; a fine sufficed to meet sentencing objectives.
5 May 2005
Appellants' arrests were unlawful because the arresting officers did not possess reasonable grounds to suspect the demonstrators had committed an unreasonable public place obstruction once the demonstrators' constitutional right to demonstrate was given proper weight; consequently the officers were not acting in the due execution of their duty when removing the appellants at the police station and the convictions for wilful obstruction of police and for assault (charges 3–6) must be quashed; PFO s50 must be read to require reasonable suspicion to prevent arbitrary arrest.
14 Mar 2003
The court held that s.4(28) is not a strict liability provision that dispenses with a defence of lawful authority or excuse; prosecution must prove the act causing obstruction or potential obstruction, after which the defendant bears the burden to prove lawful authority or excuse under s.94A; on irreconcilable bilingual texts the original English wording ('may accrue') better reflects legislative intent and governs; chaining to the flagpole objectively risked obstructing the flag ceremony or public use, and the appellants failed to prove a lawful excuse; s.54 did not preclude prosecution unde…
29 Mar 2001
The Court held that the Hawker Control Officer was entitled to arrest and prosecute; however, given the short period and limited degree of the appellant's involvement (a single sale lasting about one minute) and her mitigating personal circumstances, the appropriate disposition was to reduce the effective punishment by suspending the term of imprisonment: the previously imposed 3 months' imprisonment is altered to a 2 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months.
11 Dec 2000
The magistrate\u2019s two months immediate custodial sentence for breach of condition of stay was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, including undisclosed mitigation and comparative statistics; the appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to 12 days imprisonment to effect immediate release.
26 Aug 1976
Appeal allowed in part: the suspended sentence was quashed because the learned magistrate relied on a personal record of prior convictions that was not put to the appellant or proved; a sentence founded on such unproven material cannot stand.