9 Jun 1999
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant advanced no substantive grounds: the trial judge properly rejected the cautioned statement on language/read grounds, reasonably disbelieved the applicant and his alibi, accepted the police evidence that the heroin was found on the applicant, and the 6-year sentence fell squarely within the established tariff for the quantity involved.
14 May 1997
The appellate court dismissed the application for leave because the trial judge correctly resolved credibility in favour of the shop owner's brother, found the alibi unconvincing, and properly admitted the voluntary cautioned statement which, together with surrounding circumstances, justified an inference of triad membership and a conviction for theft (robbery not proved).
19 Sept 1996
The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the trial judge properly applied identification principles, accepted prolonged observation and the corroborating circumstances of money and drugs found on the appellant, rejected the photographer's evidence as less persuasive than oral eyewitness evidence, and correctly found the cautioned statement voluntary despite procedural defects; on sentence the court allowed a partial modification on totality grounds by directing concurrency for part of the sentence.
8 Feb 1996
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate made a demonstrable factual error by attributing to the appellant a claim she never made about being too tired and not listening, thereby undermining the credibility assessment and the admissibility/factual basis supporting the conviction.
4 Sept 1992
The trial judge lawfully admitted the voluntary cautioned statement and sufficiently addressed intent; the detail in the confession furnished adequate evidence for conviction under s20(2) of the Societies Ordinance (Cap 151); the Court may amend the fourth charge accordingly and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 Jan 1992
Appeal allowed because the magistrate was plainly mistaken in treating identification as not in issue, failed to consider and exercise the discretion to exclude a first-time dock identification and failed to address material inconsistencies in the evidence (including discrepancies about who was present for the cautioned statement and subsequent denials), such failures vitiated the conviction.
10 Sept 1986
The trial judge properly admitted the cautioned statement as voluntary and was entitled to rely exclusively on the applicant's explicit admissions in that statement; substitutions and imperfections in custodial records did not render the convictions unsafe given the admissions and forensic findings of fake stones, so the convictions are upheld.
31 Jul 1985
Applicant's false report of loss to Bank of Tokyo procured duplicate letters of credit which he presented for payment and thereby obtained cash/credit instead of repaying Metropolitan Bank; that constituted a gain under s.8(2) and satisfied s.22(2); Metropolitan Bank had taken originals as pledge and the trial judge could find the deception dishonest under the Ghosh test, particularly as applicant did not give evidence to support any honest belief; conviction is safe.
13 Feb 1985
The appellate court found the trial judge had misdirected himself about the factual comparison between the police preamble and the cautioned statement, creating a serious doubt about the correctness of the voir dire ruling; accordingly the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
26 Oct 1983
The trial judge was entitled to accept the police account on the voir dire and admit the cautioned statement; the statement, if accepted, placed the accused at the scene and could corroborate the complainant's evidence of a forced sexual assault even though it described indecent assault; the jury were properly directed and there was no lurking doubt warranting interference, so leave to appeal was refused.