26 Mar 2026
The application for a certificate was refused because the issues advanced by the applicant were factual credibility assessments and complaints about trial procedure that do not raise any reasonably arguable legal question of great and wide importance under s32(2) Cap.484; the applicant failed to show substantive and grave unfairness requiring certification.
18 Dec 2024
The leave applications were refused because the jury's guilty verdicts were supported by a strong circumstantial case—coordinated WhatsApp communications, identification evidence, controlled delivery and corresponding phone records—such that an irresistible inference of knowledge was open; the judge properly directed the jury on the use of the 2nd applicant's prior convictions and the complaints about counsel and insufficiency of evidence lacked merit.
7 Feb 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify or file any arguable grounds, the trial judge's summing‑up was fair, balanced and legally correct with proper directions on confessions and jury assessment, and no error warranting appellate review was found.
5 Jan 2024
Where a defendant was arrested, cautioned and maintained his right of silence and has not waived it, the prosecution may not question or rely on the defendant's pre-trial lack of or late complaint or disclosure about alleged police impropriety (including matters addressing incriminating evidence) so as to impeach credibility or infer guilt; on the facts any infringement by the fluorescent‑powder cross‑examination was minor and was cured by the judge's general directions, so the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence are upheld.
31 Mar 2022
Leave granted to receive the evidence of the two named non-Hong Kong resident witnesses (Bailey and Ong) by VCF, subject to safeguards to ensure fairness: they must testify from a neutral venue in Canada in the presence of an independent observer and with appropriate interpretation arrangements; the VCF evidence will be treated as oral evidence to be considered alongside physical evidence; costs of the summons are in the cause.
31 Mar 2022
Given that the two key witnesses were non-Hong Kong residents unable to attend due to pandemic-related travel and residency restrictions, and because mechanisms exist to preserve fairness (neutral venue in Canada, independent observer, interpretation and guidance-note-based directions), the court granted leave to receive their evidence by VCF rather than adjourning the trial; costs of the summons were ordered in the cause.
24 Feb 2022
The trial judge permissibly accepted the prosecution witnesses as credible and adequately explained apparent inconsistencies; there was no evidence of collusion or unfairness from recess conversations; those findings were not irrational or impossible and accordingly the conviction for careless driving was upheld.
13 Dec 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the judge's interventions were legitimate efforts to clarify evasive and argumentative evidence and did not render the trial unfair or demonstrate bias; procedural handling of written submissions was appropriate for paper disposal and did not justify leave.
28 Oct 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds: newly instructed counsel had adequate continuity and conducted competent defence so lack of preparation did not deny a fair trial; the judge's interventions and directions did not amount to apparent bias or improperly entering the arena when considered in context; the summing-up was not unfair read as a whole; and the sentence (5 years and 4 months) was not manifestly excessive given aggravating features (taking advantage of an intoxicated woman and absence of a condom) and appropriate allowance for mitigation.
17 Aug 2018
The court refused the s.32 certificate because the applicants' grounds were factual disputes already adjudicated and did not raise points of law of great and general importance; the amendment to the summons did not produce unfairness; the delayed application lacked justification; accordingly no basis existed to certify an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.