27 Apr 2016
The trial magistrate's credibility findings in accepting the complainant's account were reasonable and supported by the evidence (including police observations); there was sufficient evidence to convict and no error of law or appraisal justifying overturning the conviction, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2013
The appellate court concluded the magistrate properly directed himself on the elements of s73, fairly assessed the evidence and witness credibility (in particular accepting Dr Tsang\'s evidence and computer records), and was entitled to find the EER was false, that the appellant used it knowing it was false with intent to induce staff; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal failed.
27 Apr 2006
The Magistrate reasonably inferred intent to steal from the appellant's conduct (placing the belt through his belt loops, covering it, leaving without payment and attempting to hide the hanger tag) and her credibility findings were not shown to be unsafe or procedurally flawed; the chosen fine was within proper sentencing discretion given the appellant's circumstances, so both conviction and sentence must stand.
10 Apr 2003
The trial judge's factual findings that the 1st defendant was driving too fast for the pedestrian‑heavy bus lane and that the plaintiff was 30% contributorily negligent were within reasonable bounds and will not be disturbed on appeal absent exceptional circumstances, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
28 Sept 2001
The Master erred in awarding quantified loss of profits and consequential loss of earnings without acceptable documentary or reliable evidential basis; awards for loss of profits and loss of earnings are set aside and the remaining claims for loss of capital and loss of earning capacity are to be reassessed by another Master in the High Court.
25 Mar 1999
Given the size, composition, time and location of the gathering an objective bystander would reasonably apprehend potential violence; the appellant's words and conduct (alerting others to police, informing by phone) were sufficient to infer he took part in and assisted the intimidatory unlawful assembly, and the sentence of 4 months imprisonment was within proper judicial discretion for deterrence and seriousness.
24 Mar 1976
The convictions were unsafe and must be quashed because the magistrate probably was influenced by improperly admitted rebuttal evidence and the appellate court could not assess the contested confessions in the absence of the exhibited notebooks.