22 May 2020
The application for a certificate was refused because the questions posed do not raise points of law of great and general importance: the requirements to identify the responsibilities of the office when assessing seriousness and to consider consequences are already well established in authority.
20 Dec 2018
Leave to appeal was granted because the questions raised concerning the mental element of wilful misconduct, the duty to disclose conflicts of interest, and the assessment of seriousness are reasonably arguable issues of law warranting appellate determination, and there is a reasonably arguable contention that the trial judge failed to direct the jury per Sin Kam Wah on the need to find knowledge of unlawfulness which may have caused substantial and grave injustice.
8 Jul 2010
Leave to appeal was granted on the point of law limb of s.32(2) because the Committee found several reasonably arguable legal questions concerning the definition and proof of seriousness and the appropriate mental element that warranted determination by the Court of Final Appeal; the Committee refused leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb and did not decide the conviction at this stage.