19 Jun 2013
Application for a certificate under s32(2) was refused because it was filed out of time without adequate excuse and the purported points were not questions of novel or general legal importance but matters dependent on the facts established at trial; the evidence did not support certification of the second point regarding s25 Cap 455.
5 May 2011
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the terms "public official" and "public office" could be interpreted to include the respondent's position and because seniority may be relevant to the seriousness assessment; therefore the matter raises a point of law of great and general importance under s.32(2).
5 Jun 2009
Applying Shun Tak and interpreting the Ordinance as a whole, particularly section 70, the court held the common law defence cannot apply to prosecutions under section 54(1), and therefore no point of law of great and general public importance arises.
3 Sept 2008
Certification under s.32(2) Cap.484 was refused because the Court found Koon Wing Yee to be factually and legally distinct from the present case, so no general point of law existed and no conflict between authorities required resolution.
12 Dec 2006
The court refused certification because the questions raised involved the application of established legal principles to the facts of the case rather than points of law of great and general importance; it held that a retrial was properly ordered under section 83E as being in the interests of justice and not simply to give the prosecution a second chance, and denied trial costs to the applicant because his conduct (fabrication of transaction and documents) brought grave suspicion upon him though appeal costs were awarded.
2 Mar 2006
A s.67C judge must not act as if performing the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board's function; no point of law of great and general importance was established to warrant certification; Pang J did not err by failing to give insufficient weight to favourable material and there was no substantial and grave injustice shown—leave to appeal is therefore refused.
13 Jul 1998
The Court held that although aspects of the judge's summing-up were clumsy and one passage amounted to a material irregularity, the Court of Appeal rightly concluded that no miscarriage of justice occurred and properly applied the proviso to s83(1) to dismiss the appeal; accordingly there is no point of law of great and general importance to certify and leave out of time is refused.