19 Jan 2005
Absent evidence that the father and son actually colluded, the magistrate's decision to commence and adjourn the trial was not a material irregularity and did not render the conviction unsafe; the 2‑year sentence was within appropriate bounds given the organised loan‑sharking context and was not manifestly excessive.
29 Jun 2004
The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate did not give adequate attention in his reasons to all factors required by Tong Cun Lin, including whether the prosecution should have proceeded given witness contamination; consequently the Magistrate's exercise of discretion on costs could not be sustained and costs were ordered to the Appellant.
7 Feb 2002
The appeal is allowed because the magistrate failed to address evidence that two prosecution witnesses had discussed a material matter and did not give reasons for accepting their evidence despite apparent collusion, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe.
9 Aug 1996
The magistrate properly assessed the sole credibility issue, was entitled to accept the prosecution witnesses and reject the appellant despite limited cross-examination and post-event discussion between complainants; those matters did not render the trial unfair and did not warrant appellate interference, hence the appeal is dismissed.