24 Nov 2009
The trial judge properly conducted the voir dire and correctly admitted the applicant's recorded admissions; the factual complaints raised were matters for the judge or the jury and did not, individually or cumulatively, render the convictions unsafe, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 Feb 2003
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's reasons were inadequate: he rejected the defence as contrary to common sense without considering whether the appellant might have had an honest but mistaken belief that he was defending his colleague, and he wrongly treated prosecution evidence as free of contradictions; those failures rendered the convictions unsafe.
14 Jun 2000
The Court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge's interventions, considered individually and cumulatively, did not render the trial unfair or invite the jury to disbelieve the applicant; the records of interview were admissible and any inaccuracy did not require withdrawal or special adverse direction; discrepancies in evidence and issues about access to counsel were matters for the jury and did not make the convictions unsafe; the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for two counts of trafficking.
2 Jun 2000
Significant, irreconcilable inconsistencies between the applicant's verbal admission and the accomplice's evidence, together with investigative and evidential deficiencies (including lack of recording and omissions by officers), created a real doubt as to the safety of the convictions; the Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to intervene and quash the convictions on counts 1 and 3.
17 May 2000
The judge's directions, read as a whole, were fair and balanced, did not invite impermissible speculation about the owner's state of mind, fairly presented the applicant's defence, and left the jury to convict only if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal dismissed.
20 Aug 1996
Because the judge expressly entertained doubt about the police officers' conduct at the station but refused to apply that doubt to their credibility about events at the scene, and because the convictions depended on the officers' evidence that the appellant was carrying a bag, the convictions were unsafe and were quashed.
17 Dec 1992
Absence of a mandatory shorthand or mechanical recorder in the District Court does not automatically breach Article 11(4); it is sufficient that the trial judge provide an accurate record in a form he directs and that the Court of Appeal is furnished an adequate transcript enabling proper review. Where the trial judge, having applied identification principles and seen and heard witnesses, identifies some reliable identifications and corrects transcript errors, the convictions will not be set aside as unsafe absent overwhelming contrary indications.
31 Jan 1992
Because the presumptions in s46(d)(v) and s47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance were repealed by s3(2) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance as from 8 June 1991, reliance on those presumptions at trial rendered the convictions unsafe where it could not be shown the verdicts would inevitably have been the same; accordingly the appeals are allowed, convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
18 Oct 1990
Section 12 does not prohibit the prosecution from asking its own accomplice or immunised witnesses about prior convictions or triad membership where disclosure assists the tribunal of fact; an inartful prosecutorial remark implying others' good character did not warrant discharge absent prejudice and an application; discrepancies in evidence did not render the convictions unsafe given jury assessment of credibility and comprehensive summing up; accordingly leave to appeal against convictions refused and convictions upheld.
13 Sept 1988
The judge's summing up sufficiently and properly directed the jury on the burden and standard of proof and on the requirement that the accused be shown to have joined the single ongoing conspiracy; there was no duty to add further commentary or to use the specific phrasing that inferences must be 'compelling' or 'irresistible'; omissions relied upon by the applicant did not render the conviction unsafe, so the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.