31 Jan 2019
Section 37(a) requires that the defendant appreciate the falsity of the declaration; an honest and genuine belief that the declaration was not false (including a mistake of law about ROO disclosure) negatives the mens rea and precludes conviction; conviction must be quashed where courts materially misapprehended evidence of such belief.
8 Dec 2009
The magistrate was entitled to impose a suspended custodial sentence because probation was unsuitable and would be ineffectual given the appellant’s likely removal; the 4‑month suspended sentence fell within permissible sentencing discretion for possession of a small quantity of hard drug and was not manifestly excessive, and the court will not alter a proper sentence merely to bring it within the Rehabilitation of Offenders scheme.
27 Nov 1996
A written document signed by the declarant without any oral declaration before the authorised officer does not amount to a statutory declaration within the meaning of s.36 Crimes Ordinance; therefore the conviction based on that document could not stand.
11 Jan 1990
Because section 3(1) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance now requires probation orders to be made after conviction, it is not permissible to dismiss a charge under section 15(1)(a) of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance and simultaneously place the offender on probation; the learned magistrate therefore erred and the case must be remitted for disposition consistent with that statutory requirement.
30 May 1989
The Court held that the trial judge gave careful, adequate reasons, was entitled to prefer the complainant's evidence to the Applicant's despite discrepancies, the refusal to recall the doctor was proper given the late and unsupported nature of the suggested medical defence, the prosecution's conduct did not fall below acceptable professional standards, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance did not bar the Crown's application; accordingly the convictions were not unsafe and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
9 May 1988
The Court held the applicant had validly authorised disclosure of his recorded conviction under section 6(5), that sections 4(1)(c) and 4(2)(b) did not apply to a foreign resident visa, and that disclosure to the applicant was therefore lawful and not in breach of section 2(1)(ii); the application for certiorari was dismissed.