26 Feb 2026
On re‑examination of all evidence the court found the witness’s testimony consistent with post‑collision photographs and that the appellant’s account contained material, contradictory statements; therefore the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was safe and must be upheld.
16 Feb 2026
On a full re‑hearing the court accepted PW1's credible evidence and the post‑accident photographs showing the minibus remained in its lane and the appellant's vehicle had crossed into that lane; that evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant drove without due care, so the conviction is upheld.
28 Aug 2024
The Court allowed the Secretary for Justice's appeal concerning D1: the trial judge erred by failing to integrate admitted property and environmental evidence with identification material, producing a perverse acquittal; the convictions and sentences of D5, D6 and D7 were supported by the cumulative visual and witness evidence and are upheld; D8's conviction and sentence were quashed because the trial judge wrongly required the defendant to perform movements/expose teeth during the trial and relied on that compelled assistance for identification, rendering the conviction unsafe.
11 Jan 2024
On rehearing the court found material errors and unfairness in the magistrate's treatment of photographic and CCTV evidence, failure to require or consider contemporaneous phone records and medical documentation adequately, and material inconsistencies in prosecution witness evidence and motive that undermined the safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
22 Jul 2020
The court directed focused pre-trial case management and specific rulings on admissibility: DIP Sung may not be called on the voir dire; the VRI of Ko Chun-wai and its transcript are not admissible for the purposes contended by the defence; telephone call certificates must comply with s22A Evidence Ordinance before admission; selected photographs (12,13,18,19,23,29,31,35) are admissible subject to proof of date; custody CCTV is not available and its non‑existence is to be an agreed fact; the drugs valuation officer should attend to give oral evidence; expert consumption evidence may be summar…
8 Jan 2020
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses, reasonably and coherently accepted the complainant's and police evidence that the video depicted the complainant's lower-body/underlayer shorts and that the appellant's accidental-activation account was implausible; no material misdirection or irrationality was shown and the conviction is safe.
16 Feb 2017
The court allowed service of the signed supplemental witness statements generally but excluded the photographs and all evidence purporting to show a carpet at the entrance because the defendant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for late discovery and provenance, and admission would prejudice the plaintiff and potentially introduce new issues requiring trial adjournment; objections to speculative parts were rejected for determination at trial.
18 Aug 2015
The court held Metta failed to discharge the burden of establishing litigation privilege over the photos and that Categories M (quotations), N (all photos including cores), O (final drawings) and P (payment information since file A107) are relevant and necessary for discovery and must be disclosed without waiting for final accounts; selective waiver of privilege in respect of photos is not permitted.
6 Jul 2011
The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge permissibly found on the evidence that between 27 March and 1 April 2007 the applicant became part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice: the deliberate concealment of a record of interview and presentation of a misleading investigation file had the tendency to affect prosecution decisions and the judge was entitled to reject the applicant's out-of-court explanations and draw adverse inferences from the surrounding circumstances; any error about the source of the photographs was harmless because the judge expressly fo…
11 Sept 2006
The magistrate's credibility findings were lawful and rational: he was entitled to accept the police evidence that the appellant understood and ignored requests for his licence, to reject the appellant's account as inherently unbelievable without reversing the burden of proof, and to conclude the photographic evidence did not suffice to undermine the prosecution narrative; accordingly the convictions on the appealed charges were upheld.