25 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal against conviction is refused because counsel reasonably exercised tactical discretion in not calling Yip—who had pleaded guilty and given a summary of facts implicating the applicant—and the jury were properly directed about and entitled to accept the accomplice evidence of Kam; the applicant's complaints about the summing-up and verdict lacked substance.
16 Jun 2023
Leave to appeal was granted only on specific, reasonably arguable points: D2 was granted leave limited to whether the judge should have directed the jury about D1's evidence alleging D2's prior unrelated drug trafficking; D3 was granted leave to appeal her conviction on grounds concerning failure to give a Li Jin direction (grounds 1 and 2) and granted leave to appeal sentence on whether her limited role was properly taken into account. All other grounds advanced by both applicants were refused. Appeal aid certificates were granted and the transcript of D1's evidence was ordered included in t…
16 Mar 2017
The failure by the prosecution to disclose material that was potentially relevant to the credibility of key accomplice witnesses breached the prosecution's disclosure duty and rendered the conviction unsafe; accordingly the appeal must be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a retrial on a fresh indictment ordered, subject to prosecutorial remedies and appropriate disclosure procedures prior to retrial.
14 May 2014
The magistrate's evaluation that the accomplice witness was credible and that contemporaneous documentary and voucher evidence contradicted the appellants' account was properly reached; those findings made the convictions safe; the chosen sentences (two groups of concurrent terms ordered to run consecutively giving total 18 months) were proportionate for breach of trust; and the mandatory restitution order under section 12 for the ascertained payment was lawful and correctly quantified for the 2nd appellant.
18 Dec 2013
The Court held the trial judge erred in law in ruling that the drafting and emailing of the draft consultancy agreement (P8) in Hong Kong constituted the making of an offer to the Macau agent for the purposes of s9(2) POBO; the substantive offence is committed when the offer is communicated to the agent, and conspiracy under s159A requires agreement to commit an offence triable in Hong Kong or that a substantial measure of activities constituting the crime occur in Hong Kong; on the prosecution case as presented the contemplated offer was to be made in Macau so there was no case to answer and…
30 Jan 2013
The Court held the trial judge's directions adequately warned the jury about the accomplice's interest in obtaining a sentence reduction and instructed caution in assessing his evidence; it was not essential to quantify the possible extent of reduction in the circumstances. D1's 3rd VIR was admissible because D1's admissions in that interview were relevant acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy and its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice. The prosecution evidence including the accomplice's testimony and independent supporting material was sufficient to sustain convictions;…
21 Mar 2003
The Court held the convictions were safe: the trial judge, having heard extended testimony from the accomplice (D1) and having addressed inconsistencies and credibility issues, was entitled to prefer D1's evidence and properly exercised discretion in not recalling witnesses; the applicant failed to rebut that evidence. The Court allowed the sentence appeal in part on totality grounds and reduced the aggregate term to three years by varying concurrency.
30 Apr 1999
Where delay is alleged, actual evidence of prejudice is required before a stay or special directions are mandated; the trial judge's directions on lapse of time, burden and accomplice caution were adequate given the absence of evidence of actual prejudice; prior interviews/statements properly admitted and used to test credibility when put in issue by parties; co-accused's guilty plea is not evidence of guilt of co-defendants; fresh evidence about D4's accident was not sufficiently cogent or outcome-determinative to justify a new trial; however original custodial sentences were excessive in li…
2 Jun 1998
The trial judge properly exercised his discretion: the issues about Wong's credibility and the delay/publicity raised questions of fact for the jury and did not make a fair trial impossible; the police officers who posed as cell-mates acted as eavesdropping spectators and did not induce a confession, so their evidence was not unfairly procured and rightly admitted.
12 Mar 1992
Evidence that the accused had trafficked from the very cache found in the flat prior to 20 November was properly admissible to prove that the accused possessed the heroin for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and were aware of its nature; the trial judge did not err in admitting that evidence nor in his directions about the accomplice's inconsistent statements, and the convictions were safe and should be affirmed.