7 Apr 2025
律政司司長 訴 戴嘉正及另一人
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 1257
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA262/2024
The appellate court found the magistrate misinterpreted PW14's evidence and undervalued the cumulative probative force of the CCTV footage together with time‑stamped WhatsApp messages and photos; that combined evidence made the identification of D3 and D4 the only reasonable conclusion and the magistrate's acquittals were therefore perverse. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court's observations, including consideration of joint‑enterprise liability if appropriate.