3 Jul 2025
Trial judge reasonably rejected the medical records and expert opinions on credibility and weight; the contemporaneous interview admissions and objective facts surrounding deliberate fabrication of documents established intent beyond reasonable doubt; on retrial the appellate court found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings and upheld the convictions and sentence.
25 Jan 2024
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge gave absolute weight to prosecution testimony which the appellate court found unreliable on key points and failed to properly consider alternative reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence; because a reasonable account consistent with innocence existed, guilt was not the only irresistible inference and the conviction was therefore quashed.
10 Oct 2023
上訴庭認為原審對拒絕緩刑的理由交代不足，重新行使量刑酌情權後認定案件存在特殊情況（包括歸還得益或已補償、精神健康報告顯示產後抑鬱及低重犯風險、初犯及家庭照顧需要等），故維持原有合計三個月監禁刑期，但命令該刑期緩刑18個月執行。
19 Jun 2020
The conviction was upheld because the judge accepted the Transport Department officer's evidence over the appellant's, found the appellant knowingly signed for both old and new owners without lawful authority and intended to induce officials to accept the document as genuine, satisfying the elements of the offence; sentencing was reduced to a suspended sentence with a fine in light of mitigation (lack of economic loss and exigent circumstances).
7 Mar 2014
The court accepted the complainant's credibility and the appellant's voluntary admission recorded by police; even if the contract originally lacked a date, the appellant's unilateral addition of a date changed the document into a false document and amounted to use of a false instrument in proceedings; the trial judge's oral reasons were sufficient in context and the conviction may be quashed on the original particulars and a conviction entered on amended particulars naming the affected party; the sentence of 9 months was not excessive.
27 Feb 2012
The Court upheld the 3.5‑year sentence for the second appellant because the offence involved coordinated group conduct, a cross‑border element and continued intent to offend, and the appellant's account and mitigation lacked credibility; the Court allowed the fourth appellant's sentence to be reduced from three years to two and a half years because she was charged with possession of a single false card and sufficiently mitigated by personal circumstances (including shared childcare) to warrant a six‑month reduction from the appropriate three‑year baseline.
3 Nov 2004
Although the fraud was serious and custodial sentences would normally be appropriate for senior public servants convicted after trial, the Court exercised its discretion under s81B to refuse to substitute immediate imprisonment because substantial restitution (including a further payment of interest) and other mitigating circumstances, taken together, justified maintaining the concurrent 12‑month sentences suspended for two years despite the lack of demonstrated remorse.
27 Sept 2004
The Court held that on the totality of the evidence the applicant and her husband provided substantial part of the purchase price, the applicant knew of and participated in the arrangements, and the false statements in the two allowance applications were made with intent to deceive CUHK; the judge did not rely on a bare presumption of resulting trust but on inferences properly drawn from the evidence; the convictions and suspended sentences were upheld.
20 Jun 2001
The convictions were upheld because the documentary evidence (significant discrepancies between Exh P17 and Exh P18) together with witness identification of the appellant's signatures and the absence of any explanation from the appellant established beyond reasonable doubt that he falsified records and dishonestly appropriated the understated receipts; acquittals on other charges were proper where the evidence implicated another supervisor (PW15) and created reasonable doubt.
22 Jan 1999
The trial judge erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the manifest breach of trust, deception of the principal and sustained commercial corruption; the appropriate starting point was four years' imprisonment on each charge reduced to three years having regard to mitigation, and the concurrent sentences were varied accordingly while the mandatory s.12 payment order remained in force.