2 Sept 2022
The court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded there was no legal basis to disturb the conviction: the judge had properly considered the police evidence, the video recordings and reasons for rejecting defence accounts; discrepancies noted were not material and did not render the verdict irrational or impossible.
24 Aug 2022
Conviction quashed because, on a full re‑hearing of the admitted evidence and videos, and given that the prosecution limited its case to the subjective basis (intent to provoke others under s17B(2)), the accepted evidence did not exclude reasonable alternative inferences and therefore did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to provoke others to breach the peace. The fresh footage CF1 was not admitted and did not alter the assessment; nonetheless the conviction was unsafe on the evidence presented under the pleaded basis.
4 Jul 2022
The magistrate's identification from CCTV combined with the contextual evidence (time, crowd, tense police-public relations, sensitive anniversary and immediate police presence) provided a lawful basis to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's act was objectively likely to provoke others and/or manifested intent to incite breach of the peace under s17B(2); the conviction is therefore safe.
16 Sept 2004
The court upheld the magistrate's finding that placing a camera beneath a woman's skirt on a crowded MTR escalator during rush hour was disorderly conduct which was inherently and realistically likely to provoke members of the public to resort to force or violence, so that a breach of the peace was likely within s17B(2); absence of actual violence was fortuitous and did not undermine the likelihood assessment.
22 Mar 1985
On objective assessment the arresting constable had reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of the peace from the crowd reaction to the appellant jumping the queue, so the warrantless arrest was lawful; admitted parts of the medical certificate were properly considered and there was no reversible error, therefore the conviction is affirmed.