11 Dec 2020
Because the appeal succeeded on limited grounds founded on potential doubt/accident and the issues were factually and legally simple, the court exercised its discretion to award the appellant fifty percent of the formal appeal costs and refused to grant a two‑counsel certificate.
17 Oct 2014
Because the money alleged to have been laundered was clean and therefore could not constitute proceeds of an indictable offence under s25(1) OSCO, the convictions on Charge 4 could not stand; accordingly appellants are entitled to full costs of the substantive appeals, subject to discretions to discount costs where parties pursued unmeritorious grounds (applied to leave applications and Court of Appeal costs), and certification for counsel was limited to two counsel.
26 May 2010
The magistrate misapplied his discretion by refusing the adjournment when the appellant had taken reasonable steps to secure representation, was young with no convictions, the charge was serious, and delay was not attributable to him; accordingly the conviction and the detention order were quashed and no retrial was ordered due to prejudice and delay.
11 May 2005
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's statement failed to refer to and give reasons for rejecting material defence evidence (witness Sham) that, if accepted, would have undermined the prosecution case; that omission rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing and refund of the fine.
2 Mar 2005
The prosecution evidence did not establish that the only reasonable inference was that the appellant was under a duty to perform odd job duties; because equally possible innocent inferences existed given the short observation, the conviction was unsafe and was quashed on appeal.
16 Sept 2004
Section 40(2) of Cap. 374 must be read as requiring any variation of the 50 km/h default speed to be made by notice in the Gazette; because no valid Gazette notice supported the 80 km/h limit on the relevant road, that limit was invalid, the sign was misleading and the appellant was prejudiced; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.
17 Feb 2004
Material facts unknown at trial showed that the sign had been extended out over the roadway before the police photographs were taken, materially increasing its visibility compared with its position at the time of the offence; that undermined the magistrate's factual finding that the sign would have been visible at the junction, and accordingly the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.
14 Feb 2003
Leave to appeal out of time was granted and, on the merits, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence for Charge 2 because the evidence against the applicant was circumstantial and left open other real and reasonable inferences not involving his guilt, such that the conviction could not stand.
30 Nov 1999
The conviction was quashed because the Magistrate changed the basis for his verdict between oral reasons (finding a joint enterprise) and written findings (finding the appellant alone struck the victim), and there was no evidence supporting a joint enterprise, rendering the conviction unsafe.
5 Feb 1999
The court was satisfied that crucial documentary evidence was wrongly admitted under section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance and that this error rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting quashing of the conviction.