18 Mar 1986
THE QUEEN v. LAM CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. LAM CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC118/1985
Although the trial judge erred by (i) not identifying specific lies when inviting the jury to consider whether lies could corroborate accomplice evidence and (ii) characterising the seized notebook as corroboration of an accomplice, the audiovisual evidence, physical exhibits and other independent material were so strong that any misdirection was harmless under the proviso to section 83(1); accordingly the convictions were upheld and leave to appeal against sentence refused.