24 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the medical evidence was neutral and did not undermine the jury's acceptance of the complainant's prompt and detailed accounts relating to counts 2 and 5; acquittals on other counts were explicable on different evidential bases and did not render the convictions on counts 2 and 5 unsafe.
5 Apr 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were either misconceived, not reasonably arguable or mere re‑argument of the substantive appeal and the legal positions relied upon (including the Roberts v Bass approach to recklessness and malice) were sound; the Court confirmed qualified privilege is fact‑sensitive, upheld that the jury's malice finding was set aside properly for misdirection, found no exceptional circumstances to grant leave and ordered costs against the plaintiffs.
7 Sept 1999
Although acquittal on count 1 and conviction on count 2 were superficially inconsistent, the conviction was supported by independent evidence from the Exhibits Officer and the jury was properly directed to evaluate witnesses separately; the inconsistency did not reach the threshold of irrationality required for appellate interference, so the conviction stands.
5 Aug 1997
The jury rejected the applicant's account and accepted the police evidence as to possession; there was no basis on the material before the Court to disturb the jury's factual finding, therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
27 Apr 1995
Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds were without substance; the convictions were supported by ample evidence (confessions and accomplice evidence) and there was no irregularity, misdirection or misreception of evidence sufficient to vitiate the jury's unanimous verdicts.
1 Sept 1994
Because identity was the sole issue and the jury acquitted on the wounding charge while convicting on burglary, the guilty verdict on burglary was unsafe and could not stand; the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence discharged.
13 May 1988
The jury's purported non‑unanimous not‑guilty verdicts without a finding on manslaughter were legally imperfect; however once the trial judge accepted those verdicts and discharged the accused there was no Hong Kong procedure to set aside that order or to continue the same indictment, so the trial as concluded must be obeyed and the respondents' arrests made to continue that indictment were unlawful; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the judge below's order discharging the respondents and returning bail stands.
17 Mar 1987
The jury was entitled to convict because the applicant's explicit admission that the money was from the Ho Yuen case, when taken together with the discovery of $290,000 in his home, his falsehoods on finding the money, and the circumstances of arrest and caution, provided sufficient basis for the verdicts of forcible detention and theft.
14 Aug 1980
Although many complaints about the summing-up were unfounded, the Court harbored a lurking doubt whether the jury appreciated the effect of acquittals on witness credibility; that uncertainty rendered the convictions unsafe and justified allowing the appeals.
22 Feb 1974
The foreman's statement that the jury reached its verdict by a percentage-based method demonstrated they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt; the Crown declined to support the rape conviction and because the robbery verdict was closely linked to the rape charge it was also unsafe; therefore both convictions were set aside and the appellant discharged.