24 Feb 2014
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's directions were adequate, the defence case was fairly put to the jury, the jury could properly infer residence and trafficking from the totality of evidence, and instances of inappropriate prosecutorial advocacy, while censured, did not produce a real danger of unfairness sufficient to overturn the convictions.
19 Nov 2013
Given the gravity, scale and sophistication of the warrant‑pushing scheme, the substantial sums involved, the strength of the circumstantial evidence and the plausible lead role of D1, the interests of justice required a retrial of D1 on Charges 1‑4; by contrast retrial of D4 was refused because she had served her sentence (with remission), the delay and prejudice of re‑trial would be oppressive and confiscation issues could be addressed without a new conviction for property in her possession under s102 CPO.
18 Jan 2013
The judge accepted prosecutorial independence, found deleted documents were recovered and irrelevant, found no sufficient evidence of bad faith or that the integrity of the criminal justice system was irreparably harmed, and held the applicants failed the arguability test; leave for judicial review was refused.
8 Jan 2013
Although the prosecution's questions suggesting prior arrests were improper and ought not to have been asked, the trial judge's decision to address the matter in his summing-up with strong, specific directions to the jury effectively cured any prejudice in the context of this case; accordingly leave to appeal was granted but the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
19 Nov 2010
Although publicity and some prosecutorial error at the first trial were substantial, the judge concluded those factors did not make a fair retrial impossible because rigorous judicial directions, warnings, trial management (including explicit prohibitions and orders regarding juror internet research) and issue-focused summing-up can neutralise prejudice; absent exceptional abuse or bad faith the affront limb is not engaged; accordingly the application for a permanent stay is refused.
23 May 2007
Ex. D1 was a mixed statement by content though defence counsel had invited the judge to treat it as wholly exculpatory; that invitation meant no prejudice arose from the judge's direction on Ex. D1. Separately, prosecuting counsel's express suggestion that the co-accused Lau had pleaded guilty and acted together with the appellant, together with oblique references to Lau's statements, was highly prejudicial and amounted to a material irregularity; the court could not be satisfied under s.83(1) CPO that the jury would inevitably have convicted, so the conviction was quashed and a retrial order…