17 May 2016
Leave to appeal was granted on the specific question whether the existing Hong Kong authorities on joint enterprise (Chan Wing Siu and Sze Kwan Lung) should continue to be applied in light of R v Jogee; the Court did not decide the substantive issue and listed the appeal for full hearing on 28 November 2016.
12 Jul 2013
Where the factual evidence unequivocally establishes that other participants committed the murder, omission to state in express terms that the jury must be satisfied that another party was a principal is not a fatal misdirection; the trial judge's full directions and the overwhelming evidence that the applicant was party to a joint enterprise to murder made the point not live, so leave to appeal was rightly refused.
25 Jun 2010
The trial judge's acceptance of PW1's evidence was properly reached and entitled to deference; on the totality of evidence the only permissible inference was that the applicant arranged and was party to the ATM withdrawals and EPS transactions and therefore was properly convicted as a principal; the defective wording of Charge 2 concerned description of the property and was correctly amended under section 83A CPRO to 'property belonging to another.'
27 Sept 2006
The trial judge rightly directed the jury on secondary liability because the evidence admitted at trial could give rise to a finding of aiding and abetting; the applicant's defence of ignorance was the same for principal or secondary liability, and there was no substantial and grave injustice in giving the direction, so the application for leave is dismissed and the conviction stands.
5 Mar 2004
The Court refused leave to appeal against sentence because it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence discounts departed from accepted norms, but granted leave to appeal against conviction on the ground that the dissenting view raised a reasonably arguable issue and that questions of law on joint enterprise and secondary liability may require determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
4 Sept 2001
Majority held the trial judge's directions on joint enterprise and secondary liability were adequate and properly tailored to the factual matrix; the directions conveyed the requisite requirement that a secondary participant who continued to participate after awareness that a knife was being used could be convicted, and no additional requirement (such as opportunity to disassociate) was necessary; therefore the appeals were dismissed and convictions upheld.
11 Jun 1999
The court held that the common law definition of murder, which includes intention to cause grievous bodily harm and allows secondary liability based on foresight, does not violate Articles 5 or 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance nor the Basic Law; accordingly the application for discharge under s.16 CPO was refused.
15 Feb 1990
The trial judge adequately directed the jury on joint enterprise, intention and the alternative verdict of manslaughter; participation in a group attack and the reasonable person standard (foreseeability of risk) can render a participant guilty of manslaughter even if he did not share a murderous common design, and the conviction therefore stands.
15 Aug 1989
Leave to appeal refused because the Court concluded there was a rational evidential basis (language of threats, differing conduct, condom/use of money, lack of observed struggle) to justify acquittal of the co-accused and conviction of the appellant; no Morgan direction was required for the appellant as the issue for him was straightforward consent; no miscarriage of justice shown.