19 Jul 2022
The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate relied on unsupported speculation to explain the appellant's injuries and failed adequately to address or exclude the properly raised issue of self-defence; the prosecution did not negative self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the appeal is allowed and the conviction/sentence set aside.
3 May 2013
The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court will not disturb the magistrate's factual findings that PW1 was a credible witness, that the repeated forceful body contacts were intentional sexual assaults rather than accidental train movement, and that the totality of evidence was sufficient to convict under s122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance.
16 Nov 2010
The magistrate's process was flawed because she rejected the appellant's account before assessing prosecution evidence and did not apply the same reasonableness test to both accounts; accordingly the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was proved and quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.
15 Jul 2010
The magistrate gave clear, cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant's account and accepting PW1's testimony; there were no compelling reasons for the appellate court to overturn those credibility findings, so the conviction stands.
26 Jan 2007
The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate's detailed, reasoned findings—grounded in direct assessment of witnesses—were not shown to be flawed; contradictions in the appellant's account and conflict with his own witness left no basis to disturb the conviction.
22 Aug 2006
The magistrate properly accepted the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as reliable and drew the only reasonable inference from the proved conduct that the appellant had attempted to steal the property, so there was no error in convicting the appellant of attempted theft.
20 Jul 2006
The magistrate's credibility findings, based on direct observation and reasonable inference, were not perverse; the appellant's account of accidental collision was inherently improbable and inadequately explained or put to the complainant, therefore the conviction stands.
6 Jul 2006
The magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and credibility of witnesses, resolved discrepancies, and the proved conduct (approaching the victim, unzipping the bag and inserting fingers) met the standard for attempted theft; there was no sufficient error to justify overturning the convictions on appeal.
23 May 2005
The Court dismissed the application for leave because on a fair reading of the record there was no arguable basis to show the magistrate misunderstood the evidence or erred in assessing credibility, and therefore no basis to permit an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
11 Mar 2005
The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate improperly attached weight to a complaint resulting from repeated questioning and failed to explain why the complainant was considered honest and credible despite significant lack of frankness on an important issue; accordingly the appellate court quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.