5 Mar 2026
The Court refused leave and dismissed the appeal because, on the whole of the evidence, the jury was entitled to find that the specific incident forming count 4 amounted to unlawful sexual intercourse; the verdict was not irrational or unsafe and there was no legal error warranting intervention by the appellate court.
15 Jan 2026
The application for a certificate under s32 was refused because the complaints amounted to factual discrepancies between the police brief and agreed trial facts, not a point of law of great and general importance under s32(2) of Cap.484; therefore no certificate was warranted.
27 Jun 2025
The court found no evidence of serious incompetence by the trial lawyers. The appellant had repeatedly instructed not to involve her daughter; counsel reasonably assessed Ricci could not provide substantive supportive evidence and made a permissible strategic decision. The prosecution evidence and witness credibility were sufficient to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
24 Apr 2025
Bail pending appeal was refused because, although there were arguable points about whether the trial judge correctly applied Wong Chor Wo and whether the evidence supported the finding that the applicant entered the alleged conspiracy or that UGTL was a sham absent proof of a predicate offence, those issues required fuller consideration on appeal; the court directed the applicant's leave application be expedited.
23 Apr 2025
On rehearing the High Court concluded that, taking the appellant's personal circumstances (being a victim of romance scams, borderline/low average intelligence, strong desire for relationship and conduct of handing over card and PIN) and the short duration/amount and pattern of withdrawals into account, a reasonable person in the appellant's position would not necessarily have had grounds to believe the deposited funds were proceeds of crime; the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, therefore conviction unsafe and overturned.
21 Feb 2024
The appeal is allowed because the trial court wrongly admitted the interview record: police conduct indicated the appellant's request to contact counsel was ignored and there was inducement to cooperate, and the principal police witness who handled the exhibits was found not credible so the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken, untampered chain of custody; without the contested confession and reliable custody evidence the conviction could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and was unsafe.
13 Oct 2023
The Deputy Magistrate correctly assessed and reconciled inconsistencies between witnesses, properly drew the irresistible inference that the person seen delivering the food was the appellant, and accordingly the conviction was safe and is upheld.
14 Jul 2023
The High Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings after reviewing the dashcam footage and trial transcript, concluding the footage supported that the appellant executed an unnecessary rapid lane change and acceleration without due care and that the judge's interventions did not render the trial unfair; therefore the conviction for careless driving under Cap.374 s.38(1) was safe and must be affirmed.
23 Dec 2022
The appeal was allowed because the court found the complainant's identification evidence was unreliable and contained material doubts (uncertainty in identification, inconsistent account about clothing and attention to the assailant), and the trial judge erred in concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the assailant; the conviction was therefore unsafe and quashed.
25 Oct 2022
When read in context the impugned remarks were an emphatic warning against juror investigation and speculation (particularly internet research) and, although stringently worded, did not improperly pressure jurors or render the trial unfair; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal is dismissed.