7 Aug 2025
The judge's acceptance of PW1's and the police evidence, corroborated by CCTV and the applicant's own statements, made the defence account implausible; there was no convincing basis to disturb the convictions or the sentence; consequently leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.
26 Jan 2023
The appellate court affirmed that the magistrate correctly found the officers were acting in the due execution of their duty, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant assaulted or resisted those officers, the magistrate's credibility findings were not plainly wrong, and the custodial sentences were appropriate and not manifestly excessive.
8 Jul 2022
The trial judge’s positive credibility findings were not plainly wrong; the minor inconsistencies identified were immaterial to the core issues; the prosecution proved both resisting arrest and common assault beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the convictions and sentences were upheld.
11 Feb 2022
The court held the magistrate's starting point of 12 months for the offence of using a forged identity card was excessive. On the facts — the forged card was of such poor quality it was unlikely to deceive, and the act was a spontaneous mistake made under stress given the Appellant's family circumstances — the appropriate starting point for Offence 1 is 6 months. The magistrate did not sufficiently consider humanitarian mitigation. The appeal is allowed in part and the sentence for Offence 1 is reduced to 6 months, reducing the aggregate sentence to 12 months imprisonment.
10 Jun 2021
Leave to appeal was granted only on Ground 1 to the limited extent that prosecuting counsel's remark about the applicant being "homeless" (read against the background of a redacted video-recorded interview) posed a reasonably arguable risk of unfairness; the remainder of the grounds were refused because the summing-up, directions on joint possession/enterprise and treatment of the mixed statement were, when read as a whole and in context, adequate and non‑prejudicial such that any omission was not material and did not amount to a reasonably arguable miscarriage of justice.
18 Dec 2020
On rehearing the Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings: prosecution witnesses were honest and reliable, there was no direct evidence police struck the appellant on the head, the trial judge properly assessed reasonableness of force against the chaotic facts and relevant statutory authority (Cap.232 s50), and the trial judge did not improperly shift any legal burden; therefore the conviction for resisting arrest was safe and must be dismissed only in the sense that the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.
17 Jun 2020
The trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses, accepted the prosecution evidence (especially the arresting officer) as credible and found the appellant, despite warnings, actively resisted and attempted to leave; those findings were rational and support conviction beyond reasonable doubt, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 Sept 2018
The leave application is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably accepted the police officer's identification evidence after careful analysis of observation opportunities, lighting and corroborating facts; discrepancies and submissions of possible collusion were insufficient to render the identification unsafe or to justify granting leave to appeal.
29 Mar 2017
Appeal dismissed. The trial magistrate was entitled to accept the prosecution identification evidence and to reject the appellant's account; although the magistrate erred in drawing an adverse inference from the appellant's silence, that error was immaterial in light of the compelling totality of admissible evidence; the sentences (9 months and 4 months concurrent, 9 months effective) were not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and public‑order context, and are affirmed.
3 Oct 2014
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably accepted the evidence of the three police witnesses, the appellant's explanations were implausible, the alleged inconsistencies were not sufficient to undermine credibility, absence of CCTV footage could not be relied on to overturn findings, and appellate deference to the trial judge's credibility assessments means the convictions and fines are safe.