4 Jun 2025
Bail pending appeal was granted because the court was satisfied the merits ground was met (reasonable prospect of success on appeal against conviction) and the time ground was met (substantial part of sentence would be served before disposal), while the identified risk of reoffending could be managed by imposing appropriate bail conditions; risk of absconding was not found to be decisive.
20 Nov 2024
The High Court held the magistrate applied an unduly narrow legal test by focusing only on whether the respondents personally committed prohibited acts; under Lo Kin‑man the correct inquiry includes whether accused persons, by their presence, conduct and items carried, facilitated, assisted or encouraged others to commit prohibited acts. The magistrate failed to adequately consider the totality of environmental evidence (location/time of arrests, flight/escape, attire, face coverings, items found) and thus her acquittals on counts 1–3 were legally unsound; the appeal was allowed and the acqui…
24 Jun 2022
The court found no reliable evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for termination, the Respondent failed to disclose or justify the real grounds, and an inference of pro-female bias was properly drawn under the SDO; consequently the termination of employment on 21 June 2017 was unlawful sex discrimination in breach of SDO s.5(1)(a) and s.11(2)(c), entitling the Claimant to a declaration, damages and an apology order.
24 Mar 2017
The appellate court found no error in the magistrate's factual findings and credibility assessment of PW1, held that the photographs and testimony established that the appellant was taking employment in breach of the removal order beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.
4 May 2016
The magistrate's factual findings and inferences that the appellants were engaged in employment were supported by ample evidence (observations and photographs) and not vitiated by error; the 2nd appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and the magistrate correctly refused to deduct unrelated administrative detention; therefore both the conviction (1st appellant) and the sentence (2nd appellant) are upheld.
19 Aug 2015
The trial judge did not err in law or principle: the relevant offences are not strict liability requiring no mental element, the judge properly inferred from the totality of connected evidence that the appellant knew the kind of medicines he possessed and sold, there was no evidential basis to trigger the common law defence of honest and reasonable belief, and therefore the convictions were safe and must be upheld.
13 Sept 2012
The trial judge properly rejected the applicant's account as inherently inconsistent with his interview and other evidence; given the quantity, manner of concealment, street value and expert evidence on dosing, the only reasonable inference was possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, and the conviction was not unsafe.
3 May 2012
Given appellant admitted the weapons were in the flat when he moved in, held keys, observed the weapons stored beside his bed, received information from the owner that the knives would be used to attack triad members, and the weapons' condition and packaging pointed to illegal use, the only reasonable inference was that he had custody/control and intent to use them unlawfully; conviction was therefore safe and must be upheld.
20 Dec 2006
The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate's critical inference that the appellant had detached the book cover and therefore acted dishonestly lacked any evidential foundation; without that supported inference the prosecution failed to prove guilty intent beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Nov 2006
The court found the respondent had benefited from the specified offences, accepted the total proceeds at HK$1,190,264, and having evaluated the evidence (including CCTV identifications and withdrawals from the respondent's accounts) concluded that a certified recoverable amount of HK$523,831.20 was appropriate: that sum comprised the full amounts standing to the credit of the two accounts in the respondent's name together with HK$510,500 drawn from the Zeeshan account because the evidence supported, to the requisite standard, that those sums were realisable property in the respondent's hands.