21 Jan 2026
The trial judge erred by relying on the appellant’s ambiguous WhatsApp apology (P1(14)) as a clear admission while having rejected the complainant’s evidence; read in context the message did not amount to an unequivocal admission of a touching constituting the charged offence, and therefore there was no proper basis to withhold costs under Cap.492 s.3 — appeal allowed and costs awarded.
8 Aug 2025
鑑於控方在審訊前及審訊期間未向辯方披露PW1及PW4所持有且與案有關的WhatsApp截圖及相關材料，該等未披露資料在本案中直接關涉核心爭點（款項用途）及證人可信性，且令本院在重審時無法確定在毫無合理疑點下被告有罪，故上訴成立，撤銷所有定罪並擱置判處。
7 Apr 2025
The appellate court found the magistrate misinterpreted PW14's evidence and undervalued the cumulative probative force of the CCTV footage together with time‑stamped WhatsApp messages and photos; that combined evidence made the identification of D3 and D4 the only reasonable conclusion and the magistrate's acquittals were therefore perverse. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court's observations, including consideration of joint‑enterprise liability if appropriate.
15 Sept 2016
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in making an insufficiently particularised and potentially unsafe identification finding from the CCTV, an error that may have affected other cumulative findings; a transcript of the identifying witness was ordered into the appeal bundle to allow proper consideration on appeal.