7 Jul 2022
Trial judge properly accepted the CCTV identification together with the appellant's admissions and the interview record; absent detailed grounds or compelling reason to overturn those findings, the appellate court will not disturb the convictions.
26 Nov 2019
The jury were properly and fairly directed on the legal issues (including whether the defendant could have failed to notice the appearance of methamphetamine); the evidence (discovery of large quantities, electronic scale, admissions) supported a finding that the defendant knew the nature of the drugs; there was no material non‑disclosure or misdirection; therefore the conviction was not unsafe and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
30 Jan 1996
The Court held that the cautioned statements were properly admitted and voluntary, the trial judges were entitled to reject the applicants' evidence and to accept the police and civilian witnesses despite discrepancies, the forensic passport report did not undermine the verdicts given the strength of identification and circumstantial/confessional evidence, and therefore the convictions were not unsafe; sentencing was largely upheld except that concurrency was ordered for three years in CA152/95 to correct an identified error on sentence concurrency.
16 Oct 1995
The Court held that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the discrepancy between the applicant's terse admissions and the victims' detailed account together with the applicant's credible motive to falsely admit (fear of mandatory repatriation), producing a lingering doubt about guilt; accordingly the convictions were unsafe and were quashed.
25 Apr 1984
The appellant's series of hints amounted to indirect solicitation under s2(2)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and his cautioned statement constituted a complete confession corroborating the accomplice's evidence; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.