20 Oct 2000
The magistrate validly exercised his discretion by finding that the appellants' unruly, hostile and abusive conduct at the time of the incident was sufficiently connected to the alleged offences to have brought suspicion upon them, and therefore refusal to award costs was not an error of principle and the appeal must be dismissed.
3 May 1996
The magistrate, having observed witnesses and considered inconsistencies, medical evidence and background, was entitled to accept the prosecution witnesses' explanations and prefer their evidence; there was no basis for appellate interference and the conviction is safe.
21 May 1985
The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to accept the waiter’s evidence and expert identification, and that the 1st Defendant’s conduct and statements amounted to a demand with menaces under s.23(1) of the Theft Ordinance; the unexplained prolonged presence of the three co-defendants was sufficient evidence of assistance and intent to encourage, justifying convictions and refusal of leave to appeal.