14 Sept 2020
Because the registry's reliance on a withdrawal letter from a different person caused the order of 6 July 2020 to be made as a result of mistaken identity and therefore to be a nullity, the court set aside that order and reinstated the applicants' leave application for hearing.
30 Jul 2020
The Court held that the Defendant received HK$2,134,023 which originated from the Plaintiff and was paid under a mistake of fact that WWL was party to and indebted under the Defendant's loan and charge; the Defendant had no legal right to receive the sum because the loan agreement and charge were void for lack of consent and were procured by forged documents, and the Defendant failed to establish any defence (including change of position and good consideration). Judgment for the Plaintiff for restitution of HK$2,134,023 and costs nisi was granted.
3 Mar 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge gave comprehensive reasons, properly assessed credibility and identification evidence, and there was no arguable basis to disturb the finding that the applicant was the person observed attempting to break into Flat B3.
5 Apr 2017
The magistrate had adequately considered and weighed the defence and prosecution evidence, was entitled to prefer PW1's account, the fresh evidence (absence of suturing at one hospital) did not undermine the essential facts or PW1's credibility, and the sentence of one month imprisonment was not manifestly excessive; accordingly the appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
17 Aug 2011
The Court held that the prosecution adducing PW1s account of the assault and PW2/PW3s continuous observation of the runner, together with items in the recovered handbag, sufficed to prove theft and to identify the applicant as the runner; discrepancies between witnesses were reasonably explicable and there was no credible evidence of mistake or collusion, therefore conviction was safe and leave to appeal dismissed.
7 Nov 2006
The court held that the magistrate lawfully assessed credibility and relied on the prosecution case; the appellant had volunteered explanations in interview and evidence so cross‑examination about failure to apologize was permissible; CCTV and probability arguments did not render the conviction unsafe; magistrate gave sufficient reasons and the conviction was therefore upheld.
8 Nov 2001
The trial judge properly analysed and cautioned on the identification evidence, found the witnesses' identifications of the applicant reliable and cogent, and there was overwhelming evidence of the applicant's active participation in the riot; accordingly there was no foundation for allowing the appeal and leave was refused.
27 Jan 1999
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses, reasonably accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the applicant's account, and there was no new or substantive ground on which an appellate court could properly disturb that credibility-based finding.
6 Mar 1998
The conviction was quashed because the identification evidence was unreliable and unsafe: the complainant's account was inconsistent and implausible as to duration and opportunity to observe, he was nervous and confused, gave only non‑distinguishing descriptors, and other evidence contained contradictions, so the conviction could not stand.
9 Jun 1995
Appeal allowed and conviction set aside because the magistrate erred by relying solely on the complainant's credibility without addressing the real possibility of mistaken identity and without weighing the appellant's good character, rendering the conviction unsafe.