8 May 2026
The application for leave to appeal conviction was refused because the trial judge rationally concluded the applicant's plea was voluntary and credible; the applicant failed to demonstrate specific counsel misconduct that rendered the plea involuntary, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the trial judge's credibility findings.
13 Nov 2025
The plea was not equivocal or involuntary: the defendant received repeated, adequate legal advice over an extended period, signed multiple confirmations of intent to plead guilty, and made inconsistent and untruthful assertions when seeking further adjournments; the magistrate properly refused further delay in light of deliberate and repeated postponements, therefore there was no factual or legal basis to exercise the discretionary power to set aside the guilty plea.
10 Nov 2025
The court accepted the uncontested evidence of the applicant's previous counsel and contemporaneous signed meeting records showing the applicant was properly and repeatedly advised of the charges and the element that the goods were dangerous drugs; the applicant's later inconsistent allegations of believing the goods were dog food and of police coercion were not credible, amounted to fabrication, were raised belatedly, and therefore did not justify permitting withdrawal of the guilty plea.
7 May 2025
The Court held that because the appellant had at hearings asserted not knowing he was overstaying and that he had been misled, and because he was unrepresented and was given remarks about possible leniency that could have influenced his decision, the magistrate ought to have exercised the discretion to allow withdrawal of the plea; the appeal succeeds and the conviction is set aside with the matter remitted to another magistrate to re‑hear the plea. The proposed new evidence was not admitted.
17 Jun 2024
The court found the legal representatives credible and supported by contemporaneous signed instructions, the defendant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, medical evidence did not show incapacity to the requisite degree, and there was sufficient time and explanation; consequently the plea was voluntary and informed and there was no proper basis to exercise the court's discretion to allow withdrawal — the application to overturn the guilty plea was dismissed.
20 Mar 2023
Because the application to overturn the guilty plea was made approximately 81 days after conviction, outside the 14‑day period prescribed by s104 of the Magistrates Ordinance, the magistrate had no jurisdiction on 27 January 2021 to entertain the review; accordingly the decision to set aside the conviction and sentence was not competent.
18 Jul 2022
The magistrate conducted an adequate inquiry, correctly found the appellant's plea to be unequivocal and the appellant not credible; therefore the magistrate did not err in refusing to allow withdrawal of the plea and the refusal was lawful and supported by the evidence, so the appeal is dismissed.
4 May 2022
Refusal to grant out-of-time leave was correct because the delay was lengthy and inadequately explained, the application lacked bona fides, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success since the psychiatric report described conscious impulsive conduct not total loss of voluntary control and did not support a defence that would vitiate the pleas; therefore the magistrate properly exercised discretion and grant of leave would cause unfairness to prosecution.
26 Apr 2022
Because the trial judge's preliminary ruling engaged legal issues tied to factual circumstances and there were unusual procedural features (change of counsel, absence of the applicant's instructions before the judge, and the judge expressing opinions on elements of duress), the Court granted an appeal aid certificate and ordered that new counsel be assigned so the question whether the ruling or other matters unfairly influenced the applicant to abandon the duress defence and plead guilty can be properly examined.
25 Jan 2022
Because there was a real and material possibility that the defendant did not fully understand the case and that language/translation problems together with counsel's failure to investigate the taxi plate/CCTV and the pressure about losing a one‑third discount caused the plea to be entered without full understanding and free choice, the court exercised its discretion to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea.