10 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because the applicants' grounds were reasonably arguable: the trial judge's rejection of key defence evidence and adverse findings about the employer's knowledge had an inadequate evidential foundation and there was a live question whether the defendants were deprived of the opportunity to make oral closing submissions, warranting appellate examination.
18 Feb 2003
Entertainment as defined in s2(1) POBO is not an 'advantage' and cannot be circumvented by recharacterising it as payment, release or discharge of a liability under para (c); the judge erred in framing the charged advantages as discharges of liability without adequate analysis; because amendment on appeal to narrow particulars would cause injustice by changing what the accused had to meet and a retrial cannot be ordered given time served, the convictions are quashed and appeal allowed.
2 Aug 2001
The Court dismissed the renewed application and upheld the convictions because the trial judge lawfully applied caution to accomplice evidence, properly assessed PW2 as credible on the whole and there was no basis to overturn his findings of fact or his exercise of discretion on sentencing credit.
26 Feb 1999
The court held the trial judge erred in admitting the GIL/Pasto documents because the statutory preconditions of sections 22/22A of the Evidence Ordinance were not satisfied and section 22B(2) precludes drawing inferences from documents to establish admissibility; reliance on R v Foxley was misplaced under Hong Kong law, therefore the conviction was quashed and no retrial ordered.
24 Sept 1996
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court concluded the sentencing judge had properly evaluated the applicant's culpability, given appropriate albeit partial credit for guilty pleas and assistance, and the resultant sentence of 15 months was not manifestly excessive nor shown to be seriously disparate from co-defendants.
23 Mar 1995
The Court held that the amended particulars to the conspiracy charge were valid and a single conspiracy survived intermittent inactivity; the trial judge properly assessed accomplice evidence and was entitled to comment on failure to give evidence; D4 was rightly convicted on Charges 2, 3 and 4 because evidence established his knowledge and participation; D7's convictions on Charges 2 and 4 were upheld; D5's conviction on Charge 3 failed because the particulars required knowledge of certain co-conspirators which was not proved, but his conviction under Charge 5 was upheld applying the proviso…
29 Apr 1993
Suspended sentences were inappropriate for these serious and protracted corruption offences under s.4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; immediate custodial sentences must be imposed in the absence of wholly exceptional circumstances. Applying the plea discount and totality principle, the Court allowed the Attorney General's review, set aside the suspended sentences and substituted terms producing an overall sentence of four years' immediate imprisonment (3 years on the third charge and 2 years on the fifth charge with concurrency as specified).
11 Sept 1992
Leave to appeal against conviction refused. The Court held the trial judge's directions on burden and standard of proof were adequate; s.24 did not apply to the appellant's denial defence; s.21 was properly explained and did not improperly shift the burden to the accused; the Kaiser‑Ho/Kaiser‑appellant recorded conversations were admissible under agency/common purpose principles; prosecutorial conduct and cross‑examination did not render the trial unfair; financial/accounting evidence was admissible despite incompleteness; admission of evidence relating to Chan and associated companies did no…
12 Jul 1989
The trial judge's direction regarding the accountant's schedules and s.21 evidence was unclear and inadequate: he either impermissibly withdrew admissible evidence or failed to instruct the jury how to treat it as corroboration, producing an unsafe conviction; therefore the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and set aside the sentences, ordering a retrial and declining to apply the proviso.
25 Mar 1988
The original sentences were manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle because the judge accepted unsubstantiated low admission figures and reduced custody by reference to fines; on review the Court substituted heavier custodial sentences and larger restitution orders to reflect the gravity, proven scale and need for deterrence: D1 custody 3 years, fine $150,000, restitution $750,000; D2 custody 1 year, fine $50,000, restitution $100,000.