24 Apr 2026
The court accepted the trial judge's findings that the prosecution witnesses and video P1 were honest and reliable, that P1 showed the appellant cut in closely without signalling causing the other driver to brake, and that these facts established careless driving beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the conviction was upheld.
6 Feb 2026
The appellate court reviewed the totality of evidence (dashcam P4 and photographs P3) and concluded the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant, while in the left third lane with left indicator on, moved left and collided with PW1 were supported by objective footage and photos; clerical errors in the written judgment were immaterial; the prosecution had not proved dangerous driving but did prove careless driving beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the conviction and sentence for careless driving were safe and were upheld.
15 Jan 2026
The court could not safely rely on the appellant's alleged on-scene admission that he carried the knife for self-defence; once that confession was treated as doubtful, the remaining circumstantial evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed the fruit knife with intent to use it as an offensive weapon, therefore the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
16 Dec 2025
On rehearing the court accepted the Magistrate's credibility findings and held that the appellant's repeated transfer of a large quantity of perishable vegetables late at night, together with his recognizance status and the improbability of personal use, supported an irresistible inference of employment beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction was upheld.
16 May 2025
On a full re‑hearing the court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, accepted the prosecution witnesses and rejected the appellant's account as implausible; the evidence proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
13 Dec 2024
The magistrate's rejection of the appellant's account was supported by cogent, case-specific reasons; with no acceptable evidence to weaken the prosecution case the only reasonable inference was that the appellant acted dishonestly with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the phone, and on rehearing the judge was satisfied guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction is upheld.
25 Oct 2024
The Tribunal concluded there was admissible, compelling circumstantial and direct evidence from which no reasonable tribunal could fail to infer that the respondent had possession, custody or control of IO’s properties during the relevant period and wilfully refused to comply with the Previous Judgment; the criminal standard was correctly applied; there was no error of law in the reasoning; and the one‑month custodial sentence was within proper principle and proportion given contumacious, intentional breach and absence of mitigation, so leave to appeal lacked reasonable prospect of success.
9 Oct 2024
After rehearing all evidence the court accepted the arresting officer's credible observation and the appellant's untested assertion of self-consumption was of limited weight; when considered with the quantity, number of bags, value and the appellant's immigration status, the only reasonable inference was trafficking and the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction was upheld.
3 Oct 2024
Applying the re‑trial standard (HKCFA許麗琪 [2024] HKCFA 7), the court accepted the prosecution witnesses as credible and found that discrepancies in timing and video metadata were immaterial; the evidence established that the appellant participated in a prohibited group gathering contrary to Cap.599G beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction stands.
4 Jul 2024
On a full rehearing the court accepted the trial judge's credibility findings as reasonable and concluded that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally kept unpaid goods in her bag and left the store with them; inconsistencies in witness accounts were minor or explicable and did not undermine the verdict, therefore the conviction is safe and must be upheld.