25 Jul 2022
Appellate court allowed the conviction appeal because the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant subjectively foresaw the risk (including the risk he would fall asleep and thus be unable to supervise) and nonetheless unreasonably ran that risk; the trial judge’s inferences were not the only reasonable ones and the conviction was therefore unsafe.
7 Jul 2015
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the DPP's decision not to prosecute may be amenable to review in the exceptional or constitutional senses recognized in authority and that the DPP may have erred in law in applying the test for recklessness; the applicant's delay was excused and the matter should proceed to substantive hearing.
26 May 2005
Appeals dismissed: the evidence (including witness statements and documentary arrangements) proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st appellant wilfully accepted free sexual services knowing they were provided by prostitutes under the 2nd appellant's control, constituting serious misconduct in public office under the subjective mens rea standard; and the 2nd appellant offered an advantage to a prescribed officer while having a course of dealings with Government within s.8(1), constituting an offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
15 Jul 1983
The judge's directions were deficient because he failed to explain that corroboration must cover the essential element of absence of consent as well as intercourse and identity (per James v. Reg.); that deficiency rendered the rape convictions unsafe and required quashing, but where evidence supported alternative statutory offences the court may substitute convictions and impose appropriate sentences.