11 Mar 2025
Appellate court, on rehearing, concluded prosecution proved each element of criminal damage beyond reasonable doubt; trial judge legitimately rejected appellant's accounts as inconsistent and implausible, properly weighed documentary and CCTV evidence and P6/P7, and correctly held appellant lacked a lawful excuse; appeal dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed.
12 Aug 2024
Where a law is constitutionally valid and no successful decision challenge to an official action underpinning enforcement is raised, courts in Hong Kong are not required to conduct separate "operational proportionality" assessments of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence; Ziegler and Abortion Services are not followed to the extent they conflict with Hong Kong's rule/decision challenge framework and remedial regime; appeals dismissed.
12 Aug 2024
The Court held that Hong Kong should not follow Ziegler or Abortion Services; constitutional challenges must proceed via established rule/decision challenge stages applying the Hysan proportionality test; there is no freestanding requirement to conduct separate operational proportionality assessments of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence where the underlying law and decisions are constitutionally secure; the defendants' appeals are dismissed.
28 May 2020
The CCTV recordings and witness testimony provided a reliable, unaltered objective record showing the appellant intentionally removed and damaged the plastic advertisement (P4) and pulled off the steamer lid (P5); no lawful excuse existed for damaging property; the trial judge's factual findings were rational and supported by evidence, therefore the conviction under Cap.200 s.60(1) is upheld.
21 Nov 2007
The conviction was quashed because the learned Magistrate materially misapprehended and unjustifiably dismissed defence evidence, indicated pre‑judgment before the close of the defence and relied on an unpleaded issue of recklessness, thereby making the conviction unsafe.