22 Mar 2016
Leave to appeal was granted on the substantial and grave injustice ground because it was reasonably arguable that Charge 7 (as amended) was duplicitous; all other grounds were refused because they disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal.
17 May 2002
The information was valid because s.6(1) creates the offence and particulars may instance multiple failures under s.6(2) without duplicity; on the facts the Magistrate was entitled to find the appellant had not implemented a proper risk assessment or safe system of work, that the drilling‑rig was not designed to act as a hoist and that the appellant failed to discharge the onus under s.38, so the conviction was upheld.
2 Nov 1999
The particulars were properly treated as overt acts provided to identify the agreement and did not allege separate conspiracies; the trial judge validly found a conspiracy involving the applicants and the possible existence of another conspiracy did not make that conviction unsafe, therefore there was no good arguable case warranting bail pending appeal.
31 Mar 1998
The Magistrate correctly applied established legal principles, properly assessed witness credibility and found beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's continuous sequence of conduct (breaking a bottle, violently opening a taxi door, chasing and swearing at an officer before 20-30 onlookers) was objectively likely to occasion a breach of the peace; the conduct formed one continuous incident so the charge was not duplicitous and the conviction is safe.
13 Nov 1997
The indictment was not duplicitous because it charged a single statutory offence capable of being established on one or other alternative ingredients; however, because there was a real risk the jury might convict with different members relying on different ingredients the trial judge should have directed that before convicting at least five jurors be sure of one particular ingredient or the other; that failure was a material irregularity but, on the facts (overwhelming evidence for the spray-canister/noixious-liquid basis), no miscarriage of justice occurred and the proviso under s.83(1) Cap.…
19 Jul 1990
Evidence was susceptible of an interpretation that two conspiracies existed rather than one, creating a fundamental duplicity in the charge; combined with the judge's susceptible use of D1 and D2's agreed facts against D3, the conviction was unsafe and had to be quashed and retrial ordered.
8 Aug 1986
The court upheld the magistrate's primary factual findings that the premises were a gambling establishment and that statutory presumptions under s19 applied and were not rebutted, sustaining convictions of the appellants on the gambling charge; however the conviction of Chen Ta Hoi under s5(c) was quashed for duplicity because the count impermissibly combined assisting in operation and in management/other control, and the court amended the charge to 'assist in the operation' and ordered a re‑hearing on that amended charge.
24 Jan 1985
The Court held the evidence proved the applicant procured a letter of credit and obtained payment by means of sham documents, the particulars sufficiently charged offences under s22(2) and s17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, the documents and admissions were properly relied upon in the absence of any trial contention about authority or coercion, and the trial judge did not misdirect or err in finding dishonesty or in imposing sentences; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and convictions and concurrent sentences were affirmed.
3 Jun 1983
A charge alleging operation of a gambling establishment across two consecutive days was not duplicitous where the gambling was a single continuous activity; 'operate' under s5(a) encompasses persons who bring influence to bear on the running of the establishment and may include persons remote from day-to-day management; the statutory presumption in s19(1) was not rebutted by isolated evidence of social visits where the predominant purpose was gambling; admitted confession statements lawfully supported convictions and appellants' failure to give evidence permitted adverse inferences — appeals…
8 May 1980
The conviction stands because the series of takings by the first appellant constituted one continuous transaction that made the single theft count not duplicitous; alternatively a general deficiency charge was valid for goods where individual takings could not be traced; an alternative verdict of handling was legally available; confessions and corroborating evidence were sufficient and any omission to repeat the exact formula of 'beyond reasonable doubt' did not invalidate the second appellant's conviction.