28 Jan 2026
Summary judgment on Part 11 of the RRRASC is refused because the plaintiff's pleadings and affidavit evidence are unsatisfactory and the video/audio materials relied upon do not remove genuine, material factual disputes which can only be resolved at trial by oral evidence and cross-examination; therefore the Amended Summons must be dismissed.
8 Nov 2023
The judge exercised proper discretion in addressing the complain of improper questioning by reminding the jury to assess credibility, warning that counsel's arguments and suggestions are not evidence, and noting the prosecution did not rely on lies to prove guilt; accordingly no specific lies direction was required and the application for leave to appeal is without reasonable prospect of success.
21 Aug 2023
Reading the summing-up as a whole the impugned passages were explanatory and did not alter the legal burden or impose a civil standard; the judge had repeatedly and clearly directed that the prosecution bore the onus and that the defendant was entitled to acquittal if his account was true or might be true, and no material misdirection was made; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
26 Nov 2021
The judge's factual findings that the applicant was seen to remove and drop the cigarette packet and that the prosecution evidence was credible were not undermined by the absence of CCTV/DNA/fingerprint evidence or by delay; disclosure of informant material was not warranted; given possession of multiple small bags and street value, the only reasonable inference was trafficking, and therefore the leave application lacked a reasonably arguable appeal and was refused.
16 Nov 2020
The judge’s pragmatic decision to allow simultaneous Chinese interpretation to jurors was within her discretion under the Official Languages Ordinance and did not amount to a material irregularity; there was no demonstrated misdirection in law or identifiable misinterpretation that could have affected the jury’s verdict; the interpreter’s experience and the short, straightforward nature of the summing-up meant there was no real or substantial risk of mistranslation; absence of a record of the interpreter’s Chinese rendition did not render the conviction unsafe.
6 Jan 2020
The court held that it was permissible for the Plaintiff to plead and rely upon admissions and previous pleaded statements made before amendment for the purpose of testing credibility and that it was not plain and obvious that the challenged factual averments were irrelevant and should be struck out; verified statements of truth attached to earlier pleadings must be preserved on amendment.
20 Feb 2019
The applicant’s utterance 'to deal with coke' was, in context, unequivocally a reference to cocaine and did not require special Zhou Limei directions; the substantive offence of trafficking was not made out because the controlled delivery prevented completion, but the jury’s verdict showed they accepted the applicant intended and took steps beyond mere preparation so the court, exercising its s83A power, properly substituted a conviction for attempted trafficking and imposed the same 21 year sentence.
16 Feb 2017
The appellant's utterance, made after her luggage had been opened, a packet sliced, a positive rapid test reported and after arrest and caution, was not reasonably capable of being an admission that she 'all along' knew she was carrying dangerous drugs (the version including the Cantonese particle '啩' expressed uncertainty); the trial judge erred in leaving the statement to the jury without first considering admissibility and the residual exclusionary discretion; the statement should be excluded and the conviction quashed with a retrial ordered.
11 Mar 2016
The appeal was dismissed because the High Court found no flaw in the magistrate's factual and credibility findings: PW3 was a reliable independent witness, the appellant had admitted striking PW1, and the medical and circumstantial evidence supported the magistrate's conclusion that the appellant was not acting in self-defence; the alleged notebook recording issue and character direction did not render the conviction unsafe.
29 Jan 2016
The court entered judgment on the defendant's counterclaim because the plaintiff had unequivocally admitted the counterclaims in two written letters made in compliance with the court's directions, she failed to make the required application by summons and affidavit to withdraw those admissions despite ample time, and permitting her to resile would cause prejudice and delay to the defendant.