19 Aug 2016
HKSAR v. CHAND GILL
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHAND GILL
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC17/2016
The leave application was dismissed because the Court concluded that (1) the summing-up as a whole adequately instructed the jury on how to treat the defendant's VRI including the Liberato principle; (2) the specimen directions on mixed statements and election not to testify were fair and not confusing; and (3) counsel's inconsistency in presenting the Count 4 case did not render the Count 3 buggery conviction unsafe since the accused admitted penetration and the disputed issue on Count 3 was whether penetration was accidental or intentional, which the jury resolved against the accused.