20 Feb 2023
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the magistracy misapplied this Court’s precedents on inferential reasoning (Lo Kin Man as considered in Choy Kin Yue), leading to the quashing of a conviction and thereby causing substantial and grave injustice.
8 Jul 2019
Because the policy clause required the driver to "hold a licence or has held and is not disqualified", an expired licence falls within "has held and is not disqualified" as established by Edwards v Griffiths and applied in Cheung Kwong Siu v R; therefore the appellant was within the policy cover and the conviction for using the vehicle without third‑party insurance could not be sustained.
3 Sept 2014
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed and s.8(9) Juvenile Offenders Ordinance applied because the offence, while criminal, was not of the worst category, the offender was a young teenager with Asperger's Syndrome and no previous convictions, and rehabilitative supervision via a care and protection order with specified requirements better served the interests of the appellant and society than recording a conviction and imposing probation.
28 Sept 2012
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the magistrate's extensive intervention in examination-in-chief rendered the trial unfair; a retrial was ordered before another magistrate because, weighing the Holgate factors and the seriousness of the offence and evidence, there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the interests of justice to retry the case.
5 Jul 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's acceptance of the expert evidence and reduction of sentence removed the effect of the trial judge's error, and it was not reasonably arguable that the conviction should be quashed, so there was no departure from accepted norms requiring intervention by the Court of Final Appeal.
14 Aug 2009
The appeal is allowed because the evidence demonstrated two concurrent uses (residential and massage) and the prosecution failed to prove that the prohibited prostitution-related use was the main use of the premises, leaving a reasonable doubt as to an essential element of the offence.
7 May 2009
Viewing the CCTV and contemporaneous translations, the appellant called police, was not observing the act of sweeping goods, and repeatedly spoke to restrain his companions; those facts negate the necessary inference that he joined a joint enterprise and create reasonable doubt, so the conviction could not stand and was quashed.
29 Aug 2008
The court granted leave to adduce the fresh medical and ancillary evidence because it was credible, highly relevant to the appellant's vision and capacity to avoid collision or form indecent intent, and could not have been produced at trial through reasonable diligence by defence counsel; because that evidence could have led the magistrate to a different verdict the conviction and sentence were quashed and no retrial was sought by the prosecution.
22 May 2007
The Court allowed the appeal in part because the frequency and character of interruptions by prosecution counsel and interventions by the trial judge during defence cross-examination gave rise to a real possibility that the appellant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial; convictions on the 1st and 3rd charges were quashed, the 2nd charge conviction was upheld, and the effective sentence was reduced to 3 years and 3 months. The court also indicated that the 3rd charge would have been allowed on the separate ground that the res gestae exception was not properly attracted.
5 Jan 2005
The conviction was unsafe because there was insufficient primary evidence to rule out reasonable alternative inferences about the whereabouts of the trade plates after the vehicle left the premises and before police arrival; therefore the presence of reasonable doubt required quashing the conviction and setting aside the sentence.