12 Feb 2026
在重審後，法庭接受裁判官對事實的觀察與可信性評價：案發地點構成規例所定之公眾地方；上訴人未能提出與其不佩戴口罩主張相符且足夠的醫療或其他合理辯解（遞交之D1不載不宜戴口罩之診斷及上訴人陳述自家有口罩且日常佩戴互相矛盾）；因此證據足以在毫無合理疑點下證明控罪，並確認原判罰款$6,000不屬明顯過重，故駁回定罪及判刑上訴。
1 Aug 2023
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the trial magistrate properly considered and rejected self‑defence after detailed analysis of the objective video; the appellant's deliberate repeated poking directed at the complainant's face constituted an intentional use of force which, combined with the complainant's responsive assault, amounted to an unlawful 'fight' within s25 of the Public Order Ordinance; the incident occurred in a public place and the taxi at the scene formed part of that public place; accordingly the conviction and fine were safe and affirmed.
10 Dec 2003
1st Appellant: conviction quashed because there was insufficient cogent evidence that, after separation, she abandoned self‑defence and became an aggressor; prosecution failed to disprove self‑defence beyond reasonable doubt. 2nd Appellant: conviction upheld because the Magistrate properly found he was the aggressor and the prosecution disproved self‑defence; sentence reduced because the original fine did not adequately account for his low income and family responsibilities.
23 May 1996
The steps of On Hing Terrace are a "public place" for PHMSO purposes and the Council had power under by-law 34(1) to require vacatur of a fixed pitch allocated under by-law 33; the Council's practice of re-siting fixed pitch holders where private landowners withdraw consent is lawful; however, in this case the Council failed to take sufficient steps to satisfy itself that the Applicant's pitch fell within that policy (notably by failing to investigate a possible possessory title arising from 45 years' occupation), rendering the 19 April 1995 notice and the decision to serve it unlawful and su…
24 Mar 1988
The magistrate was entitled to take judicial notice that the premises were residential public housing under the Housing Authority; therefore s.32 Housing Ordinance deemed the corridor a public place for purposes of the Public Order Ordinance; absent evidence that the premises fell within statutory exceptions, and given s.94A Criminal Procedure Ordinance the prosecution did not have to negative those exceptions; the appeal is dismissed.
21 Mar 1985
Because the building was private and access to the common corridor was limited to occupiers and their invitees/licensees who are not 'the public' or a section thereof, the corridor was not a 'public place' under s.2 Public Order Ordinance; accordingly the offence of fighting in a public place under s.25 could not, as a matter of law, have been committed there and the conviction must be quashed.