24 Jul 2025
The application for a certificate under s32 was refused because the applicant merely re‑ran factual disputes and arguments already determined at trial and on appeal and failed to show any point of law of wide and general importance as required by s32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
15 Jul 2021
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on appeal and did not show in what respect the Board had erred; where an intended appeal is hopeless the court will not extend time.
12 Jun 2019
The prosecution evidence relied on (the lorry driver and Mr Ng) was rejected or found unreliable and the appellant's account did not in any way bring suspicion on her; therefore the appellant was entitled to costs for the appeal and for the trial with certificates for counsel as requested; costs to be taxed if not agreed, excluding translation costs.
19 Sept 2012
The court exercised its discretion under s83E and declined to order a retrial because the prosecution case was weakened by missing and inconsistent text messages, the absence of a witness who could provide recent complaint evidence, the risk of unfairness given the benefit the complainant would have from prior cross-examination, and prejudice to the defendant from prolonged delay and substantial pre-trial detention; these factors outweighed the public interest in reprosecution.
29 Jan 1999
The court held the evidence of police observation, corroborated by photographs, sketch and items found at the scene, was convincing and sufficient to support convictions for burglary and resisting arrest; allegations of impossible observation, withheld medical evidence, and ineffective counsel were rejected on the record, so the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
18 Dec 1996
The 1st defendant parked the vehicle on the roadside for his own convenience, exposing it to known risk of theft and thereby failed to exercise the degree of care required of a bailee; accordingly he is liable in negligence for the loss and the plaintiff is entitled to damages measured by the vehicle's market value ($130,000) plus interest and costs.