19 Nov 2025
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the admitted facts did not establish, to the required criminal standard, that the applicant was a party to a joint enterprise to pervert the course of public justice and therefore the conviction may have rested on an insufficiency of evidence.
25 Sept 2025
On a full rehearing the appellant's undisputed observable conduct—independently collecting two large trays of raw meat from a warehouse unit equipped with commercial kitchen gear, transporting them by trolley, entering a restaurant's staff‑only kitchen and placing the meat in appropriate kitchen locations—permitted the unique and irresistible inference that she was performing employed odd‑job work for the restaurant; accordingly the conviction was safe. The eleven‑week sentence (reduced from a 12‑week guideline by one week for procedural mitigation) was within principled range and not manifes…
23 Jul 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify the impugned decision and grounds with sufficient clarity in Form 86 and supporting materials, provided disorganized and incomplete evidence, sought reliefs outside the scope of judicial review, and thereby demonstrated no real prospect of success such that the application amounted to an abuse of process.
3 Jul 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the judge's summing‑up was fair and balanced, the contested post‑recorded and cautioned statements were properly admissible, the surveillance and controlled delivery evidence together with the admissions and physical links were sufficient to support the convictions, and the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable.
17 Jun 2025
The evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, by merely being present and remaining at the basketball court, performed conduct or had intent sufficient to constitute acting as triad members under s20(2); reasonable alternative explanations (playing basketball, chatting, team affiliation) existed and the magistrate's inference that staying implied assent and intent was unsafe on the rehearing standard, therefore convictions could not stand.
4 Feb 2025
The application is refused because the appellant only reiterated factual and evidential complaints already rejected at trial and on appeal and did not raise any point of law of great and general importance under s32(2) Cap 484.
26 Nov 2024
The trial magistrate failed to consider negligence as an element and did not assess the necessary evidential factors; the proximity and speed evidence alone were insufficient to prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction and sentence could not stand and the appeal was allowed.
24 Jul 2024
Because the appellant did not dispute that the taximeter indicator was up and the roof 'TAXI' light was illuminated, statutory definitions and regulations establish the vehicle was 'standing or plying for hire' irrespective of claimed intent or a 'paused' sign, and the evidence as a whole proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the appeal is therefore dismissed.
7 Jun 2024
上訴法院在重審所有證據後接納原審裁判官對控方證人可靠性的評價，認為警方初步查問屬例行性質不需警誡，相關調查回答可呈堂；傳單為實物證據並非決定性傳聞所致不可採納；整體證據包括車內大量未完稅香煙、上訴人與車的關聯及其被捕後的行為，足以在毫無合理疑點下證明控罪，故駁回上訴並維持定罪及刑罰。
30 Apr 2024
Trial judge properly and repeatedly viewed CCTV footage and compared it with contemporaneous hospital photographs; cumulative features — identical football shirt with identifiable marks, short hair and hairline, matching short trousers with Adidas marking, observed change of footwear, repeated appearances on clear channel footage, and head injury consistent with medical report — supported reliable identification. The judge had taken Turnbull cautions into account. The totality of evidence proved the appellant's participation in the affray beyond reasonable doubt; conviction stands.