28 May 1996
R. v. LAM MO SZE
- Citation
- R. v. LAM MO SZE
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA307/1996
The conviction was quashed because the prosecution evidence was unsatisfactory and contained unexplained material discrepancies, there was no direct proof the appellant removed the items, and the necessary dishonest intent for theft was not established; the Crown did not seek to support the conviction on appeal.