22 Aug 2016
The trial judge committed a legal error by failing to put self‑defence to the jury despite there being a proper evidential basis; that error rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing of conviction and sentence.
15 Mar 2016
There is a case for D1 to answer because the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, taken at its highest and drawing all reasonable inferences favourable to the prosecution, was capable of leading a reasonable jury properly directed to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that D1 participated in a joint enterprise to blackmail PW1.
14 Dec 1995
The trial judge properly exercised his discretion to admit the records of interview after considering voluntariness, properly treated and weighed both inculpatory and exculpatory parts of the mixed statements in accordance with authority, and the totality of the admissible evidence including admissions and agreed factual material supported the convictions for unlawful wounding and affray; there was no material misdirection and leave to appeal is refused.
7 May 1993
The Court held the trial judge's directions were proper, the accomplice evidence was properly corroborated (by the first applicant's statement and by fingerprint evidence as explained by the second applicant), there was no prejudicial interference with cross-examination, and the convictions of the first and second applicants were upheld; sentencing was lawful, but the second applicant's sentence was reduced to 17 years to reflect timely cooperation; the third applicant's 11.5 year sentence was affirmed.
21 May 1992
Any imperfections in the trial judge's directions were harmless in context; the statutory presumptions were correctly confined to possession-for-trafficking counts, the whispered remark—though regrettably repeated—did not create a lurking doubt sufficient to overturn convictions, the sergeant's later misconduct did not render his evidence so unreliable as to undermine the jury's verdicts given the corroborating evidence, and the convictions were therefore safe and were affirmed.
16 Aug 1974
The offences of unlawful detention of a female and traffic in females under the Protection of Women and Juveniles Ordinance are not within the class of 'sexual cases' as meant in Archbold that require a mandatory corroboration warning; there was no statutory requirement to give such a direction here and the trial judge's omission did not vitiate the convictions.