17 Mar 2021
The trial judge validly excluded the defence expert for lack of appropriate expertise on the principal issue; the admitted physical and expert evidence overwhelmingly established the collision occurred in the motorcyclist's lane, so the Court of Appeal correctly applied the proviso and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 Nov 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the complaints were fact‑sensitive criticisms of the trial judge's summing‑up that did not raise questions of law of general importance, and because the Court of Appeal legitimately applied the proviso given overwhelming evidence such that no substantial and grave injustice arose.
13 Jan 2004
Because the trial judge relied on evidence and inferences that were admitted only for the co-defendant and were inadmissible or mistakenly interpreted against the Applicant, the conviction was unsafe; the appeal was allowed, conviction quashed, no retrial ordered, and costs awarded to the Applicant.
27 Mar 1998
The Court refused to certify the three proposed questions as matters of great and general public importance, holding that although each question was of moment in the particular prosecution, none crossed the threshold required for certification.
23 Mar 1995
The Court held that the amended particulars to the conspiracy charge were valid and a single conspiracy survived intermittent inactivity; the trial judge properly assessed accomplice evidence and was entitled to comment on failure to give evidence; D4 was rightly convicted on Charges 2, 3 and 4 because evidence established his knowledge and participation; D7's convictions on Charges 2 and 4 were upheld; D5's conviction on Charge 3 failed because the particulars required knowledge of certain co-conspirators which was not proved, but his conviction under Charge 5 was upheld applying the proviso…
4 Apr 1986
The omission of any reference in the summing-up to materially significant evidence of a co-accused (which directly bore on the voluntariness/accuracy of the appellant's cautioned statement and on the appellant's awareness of the contents) rendered the summing-up incomplete and the conviction unsafe; the proviso could not be applied because the Court could not be satisfied the verdict would inevitably have been the same; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
13 Dec 1985
The convictions were upheld because the complainant's testimony was corroborated by the discovery of a suction/curettage apparatus and related material and the misdirections and non-directions, while undesirable, were not of such gravity as to vitiate the verdicts; however the court found the original sentences excessive and substituted reduced custodial terms (D1 reduced to 2 years, D2 reduced to 18 months) to run from 23 April 1985.
7 Nov 1984
The applicant's cautioned statement, although admissible as evidence when put in by the Crown, was a bare denial which, together with the other Crown evidence, was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; any misapprehension by the District Judge about the weight to be given to that statement did not affect the inevitable outcome and the proviso applies, so the conviction is upheld.
24 Mar 1983
The trial judge misdirected the jury by inviting adverse inference from the defendants' failure to disclose their defences to police before trial, which exceeded permissible comment; nevertheless, because the circumstantial and forensic evidence against the appellants was strong, the Court applied the proviso to s.83(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance and refused the applications for leave to appeal, upholding the convictions.
27 Mar 1975
The charge of conspiracy to offer a bribe was valid despite lack of stated object because 'bribe' imports corrupt purpose; although several items of evidence (notebook, parts of Thistlethwaite's testimony, Wells' background evidence) were wrongly admitted, the appellate court was satisfied no miscarriage of justice actually occurred based on the judge's assessment of the principal witness, so the proviso under s.83(1) applies; convictions and sentences stand and leave to appeal sentence is refused.