25 Nov 2005
The conviction was upheld because the magistrate accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the licensee and the appellant offered no evidence to contradict it; the sentence to a Training Centre was appropriate and inevitable given the appellant's antecedents and the report indicating triad association.
14 Nov 2002
The conviction was unsafe and must be set aside because defence counsel's mistaken belief and incorrect advice about the effect of voir dire evidence prevented the appellant from giving evidence and from having her defence and good character properly developed and considered; prosecution conceded the potential unfairness; therefore appeal allowed and retrial ordered.
30 Oct 2002
The appeal was allowed because the court found the solicitor's advice regarding whether the appellant should give evidence was of such quality that it affected the fairness of the trial, rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring the conviction to be set aside and the matter remitted for a trial de novo.
12 May 2001
The conviction was unsafe because the trial magistrate failed to ensure the unrepresented appellant properly understood her rights before electing to give evidence, a failure that could have prejudiced her decision and trial fairness; excessive judicial intervention reinforced the need to quash the conviction and order a retrial before another magistrate.
5 Oct 1999
Trial counsel was not flagrantly incompetent; he made a reasonable tactical decision after balancing the high risk of damaging cross-examination and the implausibility of the applicant's explanation; absent a miscarriage of justice the Court will not overturn such tactical decisions, therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction and against sentence was dismissed and the original sentence upheld.
25 Oct 1989
The verdict was upheld because the prosecution evidence was credible and sufficient, the applicant was given the opportunity to testify or call witnesses but elected not to, and the complained procedural matters did not create doubt about the correctness of the conviction.
28 Dec 1982
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the appellant was disallowed to give evidence; however, because there was sufficient prima facie evidence of the alleged offence the matter must be remitted for retrial by another Magistrate to ensure justice is done and seen to be done.
Majority held the magistrate erred: omission of para (h) from the 1906 Criminal Evidence Ordinance did not, on the proper construction read with the existing provision preserving English practice, abrogate the accused's right to make an unsworn statement; in any event the long-established practice in Hong Kong had become a rule of law and the appellant was entitled to make such a statement. The appeal was allowed.