8 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the photograph was part of the admitted evidence, the judge did not introduce a new case nor misdirect the jury, directions on inferences were adequate and no lies direction was required; leave to appeal against sentence granted because revised sentencing guidelines may affect the sentence.
31 Jul 2025
Admissible fresh call records proved the appellant did receive a return call from the deceased and therefore the prosecution's allegation that the appellant lied on that pivotal point constituted a material irregularity affecting his credibility and the safety of the conviction; although defence counsel's conduct was not found to be flagrantly incompetent, the fresh evidence required quashing the murder conviction; the proviso could not sensibly be applied to uphold the conviction and the conviction was quashed and a verdict of acquittal ordered under s.83(3).
25 Oct 2024
The jury were properly directed that the central issue was knowledge and that inconsistencies about the appellant's finances were one of many circumstantial matters; a full lies direction was not required and the conviction was safe. Sentencing required allowance for exceptional mitigation (grooming, vulnerability and substantial cooperation in a prolonged controlled delivery) resulting in reduction of the notional starting point to produce a final term of 22 years' imprisonment.
30 Aug 2024
By majority the Court held that although prosecuting counsel's remarks amounted to a breach of s54(1)(b), in the context of the trial the breach was not a material irregularity because the judge gave clear and emphatic specimen directions (including on the right to silence and on mixed out-of-court statements) which neutralised any prejudice; a lies direction was appropriate and properly given; therefore the proviso applied and the appeal against conviction was dismissed (majority). The dissent would have quashed and ordered a retrial on grounds that the breach was material and unremedied.
16 May 2024
Leave to appeal against conviction refused because prosecutorial remarks did not necessitate a lies direction, there was no breach of the Browne v Dunn principle, the judge's evidence comments were permissible common‑sense observations, PW4's testimony was admissible as recitation of the accused's explanations, and the jury (having been properly directed) could legitimately draw an irresistible inference of knowledge from the weight of circumstantial evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the discount for the applicant's assistance in th…
12 Mar 2024
The Judge gave clear, case-specific and legally sufficient directions on knowledge, inferences and lies; the prior conviction evidence was admissible and properly confined to credibility under statutory provision; the DEA memorandum and downloaded judgment did not render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe; the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused.
7 Mar 2024
The appeal was dismissed because (1) the judge’s references to country‑of‑origin labels were comments on real exhibits open to jury inspection and did not engage the hearsay rule; (2) the summing‑up did not treat inconsistent prior statements as ipso facto proof of guilt and a specific lies direction was not required given counsel’s agreement and the context; and (3) complaints about PW3’s investigative remarks were peripheral, not objected to at trial and did not cause unfairness, so the convictions stand.
19 Jan 2024
The admitted statements and video-recorded interview together with the evidence at trial were sufficient for a jury to convict on the knowledge element; the procedural complaints (non-calling of PW2, absence of a lies direction, presence of PW3, and the adjournment) caused no demonstrable prejudice and did not render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
18 Dec 2023
The court granted leave to appeal solely on the discrete constitutional question whether s3(2) of the Homicide Ordinance unjustifiably derogates the presumption of innocence and may need to be read down to an evidential burden because that question is of requisite importance and reasonably arguable; the court refused leave on the lies direction question because it did not properly arise on the facts and was not reasonably arguable that the trial judge departed from accepted norms.
5 Dec 2023
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were matters properly for the jury, the evidence adduced supported the conviction, and the judge gave a full and fair summing-up including an appropriate lies direction in accordance with guidance, so there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.