20 Oct 2016
Certification was refused because the issues concerned established considerations for ordering a retrial and involved application of law to facts rather than establishing points of law of great and general importance; consequently the respondent was entitled to the costs of and occasioned by the application.
10 Oct 2011
The appellate court concluded the magistrate's reasons for rejecting the defence were flawed and inadequate on multiple points (including improper treatment of witness absence, insufficient handling of character evidence, cursory treatment of self-defence and unjustified rejection of DW2), rendering the credibility findings unsafe; accordingly convictions could not stand and were quashed.
7 Mar 2008
Because the trial relied upon a s.47 presumption treated as persuasive contrary to the principle in HKSAR v Hung Chan Wa that such presumptions are evidential, the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed; a retrial is ordered in the interests of justice with the appellant remanded pending retrial.
23 Mar 2007
On a reference under s83P the Court of Appeal will allow an appeal and quash convictions where the appellant is in substantially the same position as a co-defendant whose appeal succeeded; the Court may set aside sentence and decline to order retrial where the appellant has already served a substantial portion of the sentence making retrial inappropriate.
13 Oct 2004
The guilty verdicts for the 2nd and 3rd charges were quashed because the clerk failed to elicit from the foreman whether those guilty verdicts were unanimous or, if not, by what numerical majority they were reached, creating an ambiguity that vitiates the verdicts; the 1st charge conviction was upheld under the proviso after the applicant admitted possession of all drugs in the particulars of that charge; extension of time and leave to appeal were properly dealt with as set out.
18 Feb 2004
Because the convictions were quashed due to defects in s.121 affirmations that were technical and identified by the court rather than by the appellant, and because the appellant had effectively brought the prosecution on herself, the court exercised its discretion to make the order nisi absolute and leave the parties to bear their own costs.
31 Aug 2001
Sections 20(1) of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance and 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance do not contain words indicating trial on indictment and impose maximum terms within a magistrate's power; under Magistrates Ordinance s88(1) summary-only offences cannot be validly transferred to the District Court unless accompanied by an indictable offence, so the transfer was null, the District Court lacked jurisdiction, and the convictions and sentences must be quashed with jurisdiction remaining in the Magistrates' Court.
6 Apr 2000
The convictions in the six appeals under Cap.528 s.118(1) were quashed because s.118(1) creates summary offences only and no provision allowed indictable trial; transfers to the District Court were therefore void for want of jurisdiction under the Magistrates Ordinance and District Court Ordinance, rendering the convictions a nullity. Leave was granted where necessary to entertain appeals out of time and abandonments were treated as nullities in specified cases; leave was refused in two cases where offences were properly indictable under the old Cap.39 s.5(1).
6 Apr 2000
Because s118(1) offences under the Copyright Ordinance (Cap.528) are summary-only and were not indictable, the District Court had no jurisdiction to try those offences when they were transferred without compliance with Magistrates Ordinance s88(1) or without an accompanying indictable offence; transfers were null and void, so the convictions in the six affected appeals were quashed; the two remaining applicants with properly indictable offences under the old Cap.39 were refused leave and dismissed.
6 Apr 2000
Because section 118(1) offences under the Copyright Ordinance Cap.528 are summary offences and were not indictable, the transfers to the District Court were without jurisdiction and therefore null; convictions entered by the District Court in the affected cases must be quashed; abandonments were treated as nullities only where necessary to allow the appeal to be heard; applications based on properly indictable offences under the previous Ordinance (Cap.39 s5(1)) were not affected and leave was refused.