10 Jan 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's factual assertions were contradicted by the trial record, the applicant's expert evidence did not support the asserted causal link between the defendant's repairs and cessation of leaking, and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to hear the appeal, therefore no reasonable prospect of success was established.
25 Jun 2021
Because the summary of facts was silent on the defendant's knowledge, the defendant consistently maintained lack of knowledge to his lawyers, there was a real possibility his claim may be true, and given the seriousness of the offence and potential sentence, the interests of justice required allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea so the issue of knowledge can be decided by a jury.
9 Sept 2020
The plea was entered because the defendant was told there was no CCTV footage and his request for a change of solicitor was not implemented; counsel should have sought the management/shop CCTV; the defendant was deprived of full consideration and thus his plea was not voluntary, so in the interests of justice the plea was reversed to not guilty.
14 May 2020
The Court of Final Appeal held that the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take adequate account of the appellant's psychiatric condition and the cumulative prejudice from prolonged custody (about seven years) facing a second retrial; given the unusual nature of ordering a second retrial and the lack of cogent and compelling reasons, the retrial order was unjustified and quashed, with the appellant to be released.
20 Mar 2019
Seventeen months' delay with no reasonable explanation (ignorance of the law not a valid excuse) combined with absence of any arguable grounds or real prospect of success means it is not in the interests of justice to extend time; application to extend was therefore dismissed.
30 Jan 2019
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and prompt explanation for the delay, failed to inform the Court of his correct address so service was not impeded by the Court, and because the underlying judicial review claim lacked merit; in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
3 Nov 2014
The judge exercised discretion not to recall the prosecution witness Agnes Leung because, on balance, the interests of justice were better served by leaving matters as they stood: recall posed real risks of prejudice and uncertainty for the defence, could unduly focus and surprise the jury, and was not necessary given the available course of comment in summing-up.
18 Feb 2008
The court ordered a retrial because, balancing factors — the seriousness of the alleged rape, the corroborative physical and contemporaneous evidence, and the indication that the prosecution could make key witnesses available — it concluded that ordering a retrial was in the interests of justice despite the appellant having served 16 months and uncertainty about one witness's attendance.
10 Jan 2008
In the absence of special and compelling reasons, ordering a third trial after two concluded trials and appeals and after the accused has served the sentence is a departure from accepted norms to the accused's disadvantage so serious as to constitute a substantial and grave injustice; the High Court judge miscarried in failing to examine all relevant circumstances, and the order for retrial must be set aside.
12 Dec 2006
The court refused certification because the questions raised involved the application of established legal principles to the facts of the case rather than points of law of great and general importance; it held that a retrial was properly ordered under section 83E as being in the interests of justice and not simply to give the prosecution a second chance, and denied trial costs to the applicant because his conduct (fabrication of transaction and documents) brought grave suspicion upon him though appeal costs were awarded.