24 Jun 2025
Applying the re‑hearing standard, the court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings based on CCTV and conduct, refused to admit the proffered fresh hospital records as they offered no substantive assistance and were not shown to be unavailable at trial, concluded the prosecution proved dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal.
11 Apr 2024
After full rehearing and direct review of CCTV and photographic evidence, the court found appellant's account implausible and contradicted by objective evidence; appellant left the store area holding unpaid goods and his statement and conduct permitted the reasonable inference of knowledge of non-payment and dishonest intent to permanently deprive, therefore the prosecution proved theft beyond reasonable doubt.
21 Jan 2011
The magistrate correctly assessed the CCTV and witness evidence and was entitled to prefer that evidence over the appellant's account; the psychiatric evidence did not demonstrate impairment of concentration at the time of the offence sufficient to negate dishonest intent; accordingly the prosecution proved dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction stands.
18 Dec 2009
The court held the magistrate lawfully exercised s109I power: the appellant was given notice, received legal advice, clearly informed consent was obtained, the Brief Facts admitted the actus reus of theft and under Lau Wai Wo such conduct justified a binding‑over; therefore the binding‑over order for 12 months on recognizance $500 was properly made and the appeal was dismissed.
20 Sept 2002
The Court held the trial judge was entitled to find on the evidence that the applicant obtained the chose in action represented by the HK$1.65m and acted dishonestly in doing so; R v Preddy did not assist the applicant because the facts showed the applicant withdrew and converted the funds; the conviction was therefore safe and leave to appeal was refused.
14 Aug 2001
The Court held the common law offence of misconduct in public office survives as part of HKSAR law, is not unconstitutionally vague or inconsistent with the Basic Law/ICCPR, and the trial judge correctly identified and applied the elements (including knowledge of duty and dishonesty) to the facts; material irregularity and bias complaints lacked substance; accordingly the convictions and concurrent sentences were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
25 Aug 2000
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate reasonably inferred from the appellant's detailed and consistent account that she was not genuinely unaware she had not paid, supporting the finding of dishonest intent; appellate interference was unwarranted absent unreasonableness in the magistrate's conclusion.
23 Aug 2000
The magistrate made a material factual error by finding the appellant had only paid for a bottle of bleach despite undisputed evidence the trolley was half full and the bill was about $100, and he failed to assess defence witness evidence that bore on motive and the shopping list; together these failures created a real risk the conviction was unsafe, warranting quashing the conviction and setting aside the sentence.
27 May 1988
The magistrate was entitled to prefer the credible evidence of the store detective and the unchallenged police evidence; the receipt anomalies were equally or more plausibly explained by cashier error and did not undermine the prosecutor's case or the inference of dishonest appropriation, so the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Sept 1987
The magistrate erred in failing to amend the informations under s27 Cap.227 because his factual findings that the respondent left hotels without paying satisfied the elements of making off without payment and a mandatory amendment was required; consequently the appeal is allowed and the matter must be remitted for retrial before another magistrate.