|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2000 |
|
|
Court granted leave to appeal and certified a point of law where respondents were absent and did not file a counter‑affidavit.
Appellate procedure – Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – Application under Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules (rr. 43, 44). Certification of point of law for appeal. Civil procedure – Hearing in absence – Rule 58(2) permits proceedings where respondent absent and no counter‑affidavit filed. Unchallenged affidavit evidence – court may act on uncontroverted averments
Costs – no costs awarded where application granted in respondents’ absence
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Appellate court quashed drug-possession conviction where identification, search and ownership were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – drug possession – identification of seized exhibit – insufficient identification undermines conviction. Criminal procedure – search and seizure – manner and place of search must be satisfactorily proved
Evidence – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – benefit of doubt to accused
Remedy – conviction and sentence quashed; release ordered
|
22 August 2000 |
|
Conviction based on hearsay and rumour, without credible linkage to the crime, is unsafe and quashed.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – reliance on hearsay and rumour – conviction unsafe where no credible or corroborative evidence links accused to stolen property; detention and searches while accused absent.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Conviction based on hearsay, rumour and an absence of credible linkage to the crime was quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Evidence – Hearsay and unnamed witness; Search of accused’s premises in his absence; Conviction based on rumour or suspicion; Prosecution declining to support conviction on appeal – effect on safety of conviction.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Appellate court upholds conviction where appellant was found in recent possession of stolen property; trial court credibility findings affirmed.
Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Where accused found carrying property shortly after burglary, doctrine of recent possession applies. Criminal procedure – Appeal – Appellate court reluctant to disturb trial court credibility findings absent clear misdirection
Evidence – No proof of frame-up required where recent possession of stolen goods established
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed: trial court acquittal of first accused upheld; second accused’s conviction affirmed by recent-possession doctrine.
Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Appeal against conviction – Credibility findings of trial court – appellate court reluctant to disturb such findings absent vitiating material. Criminal evidence – Recent possession doctrine – possession of stolen property shortly after burglary raises an inference of guilt
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and timing – proximity in time between offence and possession relevant to culpability
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed: evidence proved burglary/stealing and confessions were not shown to be coerced.
Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Sufficiency of evidence; Confessions – voluntariness and admissibility – Allegations of torture unsupported; Appeal dismissed.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
An application based on hearsay affidavits and counsel's failure to file submissions is dismissible for want of prosecution.
Civil procedure — Order XIX r.3 — Affidavits must contain facts within deponent's own knowledge; statements on information and belief inadmissible in substantive applications — hearsay inadmissible unless source swears affidavit or testifies; want of prosecution — counsel's failure to file written submissions may justify dismissal.
|
20 August 2000 |
|
Application to restore an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution denied for delay, unsupported affidavits, and lack of prospects of success.
Civil procedure — restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution — affidavits confined to facts — preliminary objections must be raised separately — requirement to show sufficient explanation and diligence — restoration only if appeal has reasonable prospect of success.
|
11 August 2000 |
|
Application to restore an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution denied for inadequate explanation and lack of prospects of success.
Civil procedure – restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution – sufficiency and credibility of affidavit explanation for non-appearance – admissibility limits of counter-affidavits (Order XIX r.3(1) CPC) – preliminary objections procedure – refusal of restoration where appeal lacks reasonable prospects.
|
11 August 2000 |
|
Application to restore appeal dismissed: counter‑affidavit inadmissible but applicant failed to show sufficient diligence, so restoration refused.
Civil procedure – restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; affidavits – counter‑affidavit must be confined to facts within deponent’s knowledge and not contain legal arguments; preliminary objections – must be raised separately and not embedded in a counter‑affidavit; diligence – applicant must show sufficient cause for non‑prosecution.
|
11 August 2000 |
|
Court grants adoption of four infants after finding statutory prerequisites met and adoption to be in their best interests.
Adoption – Adoption Ordinance (Cap. 335) – statutory conditions precedent for adoption – consents and welfare report – best interests of the child – legal effect of adoption order.
|
11 August 2000 |
|
Affidavits containing hearsay and statements of belief render objection and revisional proceedings invalid.
Civil Procedure – Affidavits – Order XIX rule 3(1) – affidavits must be confined to facts within deponent’s own knowledge; hearsay and statements of belief inadmissible except in limited interlocutory matters – irregular affidavits render objection and revisional proceedings invalid.
|
10 August 2000 |
|
Affidavits in revision proceedings must be based on the deponent’s own knowledge; court records must be tendered by a custodian to avoid hearsay.
Civil procedure – Affidavit evidence in substantive applications – Order XIX r.3 – Affidavits must be confined to deponent’s own knowledge; hearsay inadmissible; court records must be tendered by custodian to be admissible.
|
10 August 2000 |
|
Revision application struck out because the supporting affidavit contained inadmissible belief and hearsay, breaching Order XIX r.3.
Affidavit verification—Order XIX r.3 CPC; admissibility of evidence based on belief; hearsay in affidavits; non-interlocutory applications require facts on deponent's own knowledge; application struck out for non-compliant affidavit.
|
10 August 2000 |
|
Conviction for receiving stolen property quashed because prosecution failed to prove guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Penal Code s.311(1) – Elements: receipt and guilty knowledge (or reason to believe) – Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Insufficiency of evidence where consignee’s role and admissions negate appellant’s knowledge – Appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
|
7 August 2000 |
|
Conviction for receiving stolen property quashed where prosecution failed to prove appellant’s guilty knowledge.
Criminal law – Receiving stolen property (s.311(1) Penal Code) – Elements: receipt and guilty knowledge – Prosecution must prove knowledge or reason to believe property stolen beyond reasonable doubt – Circumstantial evidence (night delivery/off‑loading) insufficient without proof of knowledge – Inconsistent testimony and State declining to support conviction warrant quashing conviction.
|
7 August 2000 |
|
A husband who deserted his wife and fathered children is not entitled to a refund of dowry; appeal allowed and lower awards quashed.
Family law – Dowry (bride price) – refund upon divorce – matrimonial fault (desertion) disentitling spouse to dowry refund. Procedural fairness – failure to swear a witness and denial of opportunity to testify – material irregularity warranting reversal. Appellate review – quashing lower courts’ awards where findings of desertion and procedural defects render refund order erroneous
|
3 August 2000 |
|
Employee sent to collect debts remained on duty and was entitled to withheld allowances; defamation claims dismissed; counter-claim largely failed.
Employment law – paid leave versus layoff – allowances as implied contractual terms; unilateral withholding of allowances as breach of contract; repatriation obligations under Employment Ordinance s.53; defamation – requirement of falsity, publication and malice; counter-claim evidence burden; recovery of overpaid housing allowance.
|
1 August 2000 |