16 Jan 1996
The trial judge was entitled to accept the interviewing officer's evidence, to conclude the cautioned statements were voluntary and to find that any breaches of the Judges' Rules and Secretary for Security Directions were not of sufficient seriousness to warrant exclusion; accordingly the conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
17 Sept 1991
The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge did not adequately consider whether the uncautioned period of interrogation amounted to oppression and whether any such oppression had dissipated before the cautioned statement; the judge also failed properly to consider the interrogation record and medical evidence, leaving the voluntariness of the confession in doubt and the conviction unsafe.
15 Feb 1990
The correct test is whether an amendment is one of substance; particulars fixing precise dates and reducing the amount from $2,000 to $1,000 were not substantive amendments, so no fresh Attorney General consent was required, the magistrate had jurisdiction, the confession statements were voluntary and admissible, and the magistrate's assessment of PW3 was reasonable; accordingly the convictions stand.
27 Apr 1989
The court held the trial judge did not err: the confession was properly admitted because it was voluntary despite a breach of the Judges' Rules and there was no cogent unfairness to exclude it; the tapes and transcripts could permissibly be used as aide-memoires and the trial judge's directions did not produce a miscarriage of justice; the directions on intent to defraud were adequate in the circumstances; accordingly the appeals against conviction were dismissed.
4 Mar 1988
The trial judge properly conducted the voir dire, correctly found the applicant's evidence untruthful and the two statements voluntary, and there was no legal or factual basis to disturb that finding; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
16 Sept 1987
No voir dire was required because voluntariness was not in issue and there was no evidence of coercion or oppression; the appellant's letter was admissible; business records P9 and P10 were admissible as originals produced in the ordinary course of business and, having been relied on in cross-examination, their contents were properly treated as evidence; the evidence was overwhelming and conviction and sentence were upheld.
12 Nov 1985
The Court held the trial judge did not err in admitting Exhibit P11; the alleged assaults and medical evidence did not render the statement involuntary as a matter of law, the apparent inconsistencies in admitting/excluding other statements were explicable and not fatal, and the handling of alibi and the Notice of Alibi did not prejudice the accused; the application to overturn the conviction was dismissed.
31 Jan 1985
The confession was voluntary and properly admitted; the trial judge did not err in approach to admissibility or exercise of discretion; perjury is not a proper basis to deny a plea discount and should be separately prosecuted; therefore the second applicant's application is dismissed and the first applicant's sentences are adjusted downwards (manufacturing reduced from 12 to 11 years; possession reduced from 12 to 7 years).
16 Jul 1983
Because particulars were given alleging threats and inducements and the Crown failed to call evidence from the officers alleged to have delivered them, and because there were significant breaches of the Judges' Rules in the taking of lengthy question-and-answer interviews, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confessional statements were freely and voluntarily made; the statements were therefore inadmissible and convictions based solely on them could not stand.
23 Mar 1982
The Court held that the cautioned statements and the conduct of showing locations/objects were properly admitted under existing authorities (notably NG Wai-ming), that any improper comment by Crown Counsel and passing reference to a third arrest were effectively cured by clear and firm judicial directions, and that confirmatory pointing by the second appellant did not produce injustice; therefore the convictions should be upheld and the appeals dismissed.