25 Feb 2026
香港鐵路有限公司 訴 吳兆有
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 1177
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA133/2025
經重審全部證據後，法庭確信控方已在毫無合理疑點下證明三項附例罪行，裁判官的事實評價並無不當，且合計罰款HK$4,000在本案情況下並不屬明顯過重，因此駁回上訴，維持定罪及判處。
Hong Kong Case Law
Rehearing standard on appeal
13 Feb 2026
香港特別行政區 訴 鄭小魚
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 1024
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA309/2024
On rehearing and after viewing the CCTV (P2) and accepting police identification evidence, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally pushed the victim's hand constituting common assault; the conviction is therefore upheld. Having considered the appellant's record and the similarity to a prior suspended sentence, activation of that suspended sentence and ordering consecutive terms was not erroneous or manifestly excessive, so the sentence is upheld.
12 Feb 2026
香港特別行政區 訴 蘇建民
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 964
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA274/2023
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。
23 Jan 2026
香港特別行政區 訴 陳義仁
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 480
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA90/2025
The High Court accepted the witnesses and CCTV evidence showing the motorcycle approaching at steady slow speed and that the appellant, whose view was partially obstructed, failed to adjust his observation or maintain continued lookout before opening the door; there was no emergency to excuse immediate opening; on rehearing the evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was upheld.
3 Sept 2025
香港特別行政區 訴 朱磊
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 5221
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA194/2024
Application for a certificate under section 32(2) was refused because the legal questions raised were not of substantial and general importance: the issues about ‘being’ versus ‘remaining’ favourably disposed and the appellate rehearing duty have been considered and addressed by higher authorities (notably HKSAR v Hui Rafael Junior and 許麗琪) and do not warrant certification to the Court of Final Appeal in this case.
8 Apr 2025
HKSAR v. MANVEER, SINGH
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 2978
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA404/2024
The conviction was upheld because, on rehearing of the trial evidence, the court found the magistrate was entitled to accept PW1's credible observation and to draw an irresistible inference of employment from the totality of circumstantial factors (time 0406 at a wholesale market, appellant's clothing and boots matching workers, pulling a trolley and placing a box containing fish and ice), and any non-production of CCTV did not demonstrably undermine the prosecution case.
18 Feb 2025
香港特別行政區 訴 梁文樂
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 1777
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA418/2023
On rehearing the Court accepted PW1’s contemporaneous, close‑range, adequately lit observation and found the trial judge’s adverse credibility findings against the appellant to be reasonable; the Crown proved the elements of猥褻侵犯 (indecent assault) beyond reasonable doubt, so the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the original sentence upheld.
21 Jan 2025
香港特別行政區 訴 黃琪芳
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 1236
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA400/2024
Trial evidence (police chain‑of‑custody, routine system maintenance records, expert certification and direct viewing of footage) established the authenticity and reliability of the red‑light camera recordings beyond reasonable doubt; no credible evidence of tampering or malfunction was produced and the appellant offered no first‑hand explanation to undermine the prosecution case, therefore the conviction was safe and must be upheld.
3 Jan 2025
HKSAR v. ISLAM, SHAHIDUL
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 870
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA383/2024
On rehearing the court accepted the prosecution witness's account, rejected the appellant's explanation as not credible, and concluded that the circumstantial facts (only person in the inner stall, handling and tying goods, stall in operation with goods displayed and lighting, absence of customers or sign of the claimed shop practice) made it the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the appellant was taking employment; therefore guilt under s.38AA was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was affirmed.
3 Sept 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 柯俊頤
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 3275
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA287/2023
Objective CCTV and dashcam evidence, read with witness testimony, established that when the appellant turned and continued to drive in a crowded car park he failed to observe a vehicle emerging from a parking bay and did not exercise reasonable care and attention; minor inconsistencies in witness timings and police sketches did not render the conviction unsafe, so the appeal is dismissed.