21 Jul 1977
The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the magistrate made adverse findings about the complainant's character yet did not indicate that he had considered the desirability of corroboration, rendering the conviction unsafe.
28 Nov 1975
Because the offence legally precluded a suspended sentence but substantial mitigation (guilty plea, good character, favourable probation report and circumstances of the girl) made the original term excessive, the appropriate disposal was to reduce the custodial sentence from eighteen months to six months' imprisonment.
21 Nov 1975
Conviction affirmed; appellate court held that the appellant's youth and clear record were mitigating and reduced the sentence for defilement from two years to one year; the two sentences were ordered to run concurrently because the offences arose from the same incident.
9 Jun 1975
The appeal was allowed in part because, on consideration of the girl's apparent maturity and pregnancy, the wishes of the girl and both families that marriage be contemplated, the appellant's youth and prior record, and the likelihood that the magistrate would have sentenced differently had he seen the girl, the appropriate sentence is eighteen months' imprisonment suspended for two years substituted for detention in a training centre.
26 Sept 1974
Convictions for defilement (A), alleged Triad membership (B) and living on the complainant's earnings (C) were safe and are upheld; convictions for living on the earnings of Chiu Shuk Ping (D) and blackmail (E) are unsafe because the sole supporting witness's exculpatory evidence was improperly rejected without coherent reasoning and because contradictions and the objective menaces test render the blackmail conviction unsafe, therefore D and E are quashed.
23 Feb 1972
The conviction was upheld because the magistrate expressly found the complainant's evidence to be corroborated by the testimony of her friend and by the appellant's admission that he and others went to the house with the girls; the absence of an express warning about uncorroborated testimony did not vitiate the conviction where corroboration was found.