3 Sept 2024
Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the grounds challenging the admissibility of the 2022 complaints, the correctness of the jury directions on consistency and truthfulness, and the adequacy of directions on the complainant's distressed condition raised reasonably arguable issues affecting the safety of the convictions.
31 Mar 2022
Conviction quashed because material aspects of the complainant's evidence (deliberate deletion of WhatsApp 'laughing' emojis inconsistent with claimed upset, together with CCTV discrepancies) were not correctly or sufficiently dealt with; those defects meant the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was unsafe.
31 Dec 2020
The magistrate's findings on credibility and the factual findings that the appellant intentionally and indecently assaulted the complainant were reasonable, supported by the complainant's testimony and contemporaneous complaint, and the evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; there was no basis on appeal to set aside the conviction.
3 Aug 2017
The court held the trial judge erred to admit the telephone conversation as 'recent complaint' because the exception is tied to situations where the act complained of is properly a sexual offence; the prosecution did not establish that the conversation qualified as recent complaint under that exception here. The conversation could have been admissible only as evidence of state of mind (explanation for complainant's return), not as recent complaint. Nonetheless the conviction was upheld under the proviso (Criminal Procedure Ordinance s83(1)) because the remaining admissible evidence sufficient…
18 May 2012
The appeal is allowed because the magistrate appears to have relied on testimony from PW3 and PW4 as consistent complaints to bolster the complainant's credibility despite those complaints not being shown to be 'first or recent' and thus potentially inadmissible, rendering the conviction unsafe; other contested items (SMS, PW5) were found to have been properly treated and did not salvage the unsafe conviction.
9 Nov 2001
Convictions quashed because the primary evidential basis (a confrontation identification made five years after the events where the complainant said 'I believe it's him') fell short of the certainty required for safe identification and the magistrate gave no adequate independent reason to elevate that equivocal initial identification to a reliable basis for conviction, rendering the convictions unsafe.
17 Apr 1998
The learned magistrate properly considered credibility, warnings, and discrepancies; the inconsistencies were not vital and did not render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
26 Apr 1996
The Court held the parents' evidence of the child's complaint was admissible because the questioning was not leading or suggestive and there was no undue influence; the trial judge had the danger of convicting on uncorroborated child evidence in mind and properly assessed credibility and weight, therefore the conviction was safe and must be upheld.