24 Mar 1986
Because the appellant was entitled to remain silent when asked to explain his presence, his silence could not be treated as a failure to give a satisfactory explanation; coupled with the finding that evidence of looking into flats on the third floor was irrelevant and prejudicial, the conviction was unsafe and had to be set aside.
10 Apr 1985
The conviction could not stand because the prosecution failed to strictly prove the s160(1) offence: the officer coupled an accusation of attempted theft (tampering with letter boxes) with a demand for an explanation, thereby entitling the appellant to remain silent; the appellant's response ('give me a chance') amounted to silence and was not proof of an unsatisfactory explanation, so the loitering conviction was unsafe.
19 Jan 1979
Where an advantage is received in circumstances that make its receipt an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, that receipt cannot serve as a satisfactory explanation under section 10(1)(a) for an incommensurate standard of living; accordingly the appellant's explanation failed and the conviction stands.
28 Aug 1976
The trial judge failed to properly scrutinise and weigh extensive oral and documentary evidence; on proper consideration it was probable that the excess monies derived from off-course betting and, on the facts of this case, such an explanation was held to be a satisfactory explanation under s.10(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; accordingly the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed and sentence set aside.