7 Feb 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify or file any arguable grounds, the trial judge's summing‑up was fair, balanced and legally correct with proper directions on confessions and jury assessment, and no error warranting appellate review was found.
22 Mar 2018
Magistrate's assessment of credibility and reliance on appellant's inconsistent cautioned statements was entitled to deference; no material or significant discrepancies undermined PW1's central account; appellant's explanations were implausible; appellate court not satisfied magistrate was plainly wrong and therefore affirmed conviction and sentence.
23 Jul 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge lawfully weighed the evidence, accepted the security guard's account, properly treated the appellant's cautioned remarks as exculpatory reactions, and legitimately relied on the appellant's inconsistent accounts to reject his defence; on that basis the conviction for theft was safe.
3 May 2013
The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court will not disturb the magistrate's factual findings that PW1 was a credible witness, that the repeated forceful body contacts were intentional sexual assaults rather than accidental train movement, and that the totality of evidence was sufficient to convict under s122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance.
26 Apr 2006
The Magistrate's credibility findings were open on the evidence, there was no demonstrable error in assessing corroborative evidence or in addressing alleged improper police conduct, and the sentence (starting point six weeks reduced to one month for mitigation) was within lawful bounds; therefore the appeals against conviction and sentence must be dismissed.
9 Dec 2005
The appeal was dismissed because the summing-up was within permissible limits, fairly presented the evidence and law (including appropriate warnings about accomplice evidence and cautioned statements), the jury were correctly instructed on joint enterprise and mens rea, and manslaughter was not an available verdict on the evidence so no direction was required.
11 Jan 2005
The applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable because the magistrate's Statement of Findings evidenced consideration of the defence explanations and credibility issues; omissions of detailed mention do not demonstrate failure to consider and thus do not amount to substantial and grave injustice, so leave to appeal is refused.
25 Aug 2004
The magistrate correctly admitted the deceased's telephone statement as res gestae because the circumstances excluded the possibility of concoction; taken with the appellant's two cautioned statements and scene evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for careless driving, and the magistrate did not impermissibly rely on res ipsa loquitur.
18 Nov 2003
The magistrate correctly directed himself on the law and, on the evidence before him — credible prosecution witnesses, expert opinion identifying initiation ritual, the collection of mobile phones, and the appellants' cautioned statements — was entitled to find the appellants had the requisite mens rea and membership/attendance; there was no proper basis to disturb the convictions.
23 Jul 2002
By majority the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: absent a demonstrated actual injustice or real risk of injustice, and given that the prosecutor asserted she disclosed all documents she considered relevant and the applicants did not challenge that assertion or request the cautioned statements in the disciplinary hearing or in judicial review, the non-disclosure did not amount to breach of natural justice sufficient to quash the disciplinary tribunal's decision; the tribunal did not err on burden or standard of proof.