7 Aug 1996
The Court dismissed the application: the applicant's delay in seeking extension was excessive and unexplained in a way that would justify reopening, and the subsequent reports of an ICAC investigation and alleged absconding of the identifying sergeant were not shown to have any bearing on the merits of this case, so there were no grounds to extend time.
25 Oct 1989
Prosecuting counsel's opening statement that the police had received information identifying the defendant was inadmissible hearsay and highly prejudicial; the remark could not be cured by subsequent direction or limiting of evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring that it be quashed and a retrial ordered on the first count.
29 Dec 1988
The evidence of surveillance, undercover purchases using banknotes dusted with fluorescent powder (and recorded numbers), the video evidence shown with consent and cross‑examination, together with the applicant's written admission regarding fluorescent powder, rendered the conviction safe despite absence of fingerprints; the appeal therefore had no merit and is dismissed and three months of custody pending the hearing shall not be reckoned part of Leung's sentence under s.83W CPO.
11 Aug 1988
The trial judge's repeated references to the phrase 'target person', derived from a police witness, and his failure to direct the jury to disregard that phrase left a prejudicial inference before the jury that the police were looking for the defendant; that omission constituted a miscarriage of justice and required quashing of the conviction and ordering of a retrial.