24 Nov 2017
Bail was granted because this was an exceptional case: the Court of Appeal had certified points of law of general importance, there was no real risk of absconding, the applications had at least some prospect of obtaining leave, and refusal of bail would likely render the leave applications nugatory by the time they were determined.
24 Nov 2017
Bail was granted because the applicants demonstrated no real flight risk, the leave applications were at least arguable and refusal of bail would likely render the applications nugatory given the substituted prison sentences; the Court should not refuse bail at this interlocutory stage where the Court of Appeal had certified questions and the DoJ did not oppose bail on appropriate terms.
24 Nov 2017
Bail was granted because the applicants satisfied the exceptional-case threshold: there was at least some reasonable prospect of obtaining leave (reinforced by Court of Appeal certification of questions), no real risk of absconding, and refusal would likely render the leave applications nugatory, justifying conditional release on agreed terms.
24 Nov 2017
Bail was granted because the applicants demonstrated at least some reasonable prospect of obtaining leave, presented no real risk of absconding, and refusal would likely render their leave applications nugatory given the short sentences; certification of questions by the Court of Appeal reinforced that the merits should be determined by the Appeal Committee rather than by a single judge at this stage.
29 Feb 2016
The application for a certificate was refused because neither contested legal point arose in the ruling: the judge treated the overlap of evidence as a highly material factor but did not hold that such overlap precludes an award of costs, and he had considered the disparity in seriousness/number of counts but gave greater weight to the overlap; therefore no point of law of great or general importance was established.
5 Jul 2013
The application for certification was refused because the two contested points of law were not engaged on the facts of the case; given the court's factual finding that Pau knowingly authorised a prospectus containing an untrue statement, determination of whether s.342F is strict liability or whether the honest and reasonable belief defence applies was unnecessary and academic.
4 Dec 2012
The court affirmed the magistrate: the unnamed road was a "road" under Cap 272 because "public" includes any class and the public had access; the Burns test was correctly applied to hold the light utility vehicle a "motor vehicle"; accordingly the conviction and $6,000 fine were upheld; Questions 1,2,4 and 5 were certified as points of law of great and general importance for the Court of Final Appeal, while Question 3 was refused as misconceived because s119 does not create a presumption of fact.
14 Jul 2009
The application for certification under s32(2) is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance the double jeopardy point in submissions in the review proceedings and the complaint amounted to the absence of a discount rather than any doubt about the existence of the principle; consequently certification was inappropriate.
14 May 2009
The Court certified and granted leave to appeal only on the specific points of law and specified matters pleaded: for Ms Chui (questions 1–3) including leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb for corroboration; for Mr Lam (para.1.1) and specified paras under the substantial and grave injustice limb; and for the prosecution on items (ii),(iii) and (iv) of para.12 while granting leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb for item (i); cross‑reliance between Chui and Lam was permitted as applicable.
14 May 2009
The Court certified and granted leave to appeal only on the specific points of law identified for each applicant under s.32(2) and additionally granted leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb to permit the applicants and the prosecution to pursue the limited non-point-of-law matters expressly identified.