4 May 2004
Because the Magistrate, having seen and heard the witnesses, accepted their evidence as honest and reliable, the evidence proved the elements of theft and joint commission; there was no error in law or fact by the Magistrate and the appeals were dismissed.
18 Jan 2001
Although the magistrate was correct to admit the evidence of the 23 January incidents as relevant and probative of a joint enterprise, the convictions were set aside because the learned magistrate did not expressly address or make a clear finding that the appellant had the specific intent to cause alarm when uttering the threats; that omission rendered the convictions unsafe.
13 Aug 1993
The Court held the magistrate was entitled to disbelieve the appellants' explanations and to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the television sets were supplied for smuggling rather than personal use; section 94A properly places the onus on the defendants to prove lawful excuse on the balance of probabilities, and even absent reliance on section 94A the magistrate's factual inferences were permissible, therefore convictions were upheld.
23 Jan 1987
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the work performed by the children falls within the scope of the deeming provision of Regulation 3(3); however magistrates are entitled to apply their general knowledge or take judicial notice of ordinary manufacturing practices (such as labeling, attaching washing instructions, packing and serial numbering) to infer that the observed tasks were incidental to shirt‑making. On the evidence the magistrate erred in acquitting and the matter must be remitted for conviction and sentencing.
14 Nov 1986
When an occupier has paid for and occupies a hotel room he changes status from a member of the public to a hotel guest while within that room; the exhibition of objectionable video material confined to hotel bedrooms accessible only to authorized guests does not amount to "publication" to or for the public or a section of the public under Cap.150 s.2(2), therefore convictions under s.4(1)(a) for publishing an objectionable article were unsustainable and must be quashed.
22 Mar 1985
The case stated was defective because the Magistrate did not set out the evidence; without the full evidence the Court could not conclude the Magistrate erred in finding no gambling; s.19 presumptions do not require the accused to give evidence to rebut them; playing mahjong is not necessarily gambling; accordingly the Crown's appeal was dismissed.