27 Feb 1996
Although the judge erred in taking into account evidence given by the first defendant during the trial within a trial, the remaining circumstantial and identification evidence was overwhelming and therefore leave to appeal was refused and the conviction on the first charge was upheld.
30 Oct 1986
Having examined the grounds and the papers, the court found no arguable grounds of appeal on the admissibility of confessions, the judge's summing-up regarding drinking, or the jury's assessment of credibility, and held that the applicant's delay and unsupported claims about counsel availability did not justify further adjournment; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
16 Jun 1981
Because the magistrate failed to determine voluntariness of crucial admissions by conducting a trial within a trial or using the alternative procedure at or before the close of the prosecution case, the convictions were unsafe; the appeal must succeed and the conviction is quashed, and having regard to delay and prior trial de novo a further retrial is not ordered.
4 Feb 1975
Because the judge failed to make a finding as to the voluntariness of the first statement and procedural errors in the trial within a trial left open the possibility of a continuing inducement affecting the later confessions, the conviction on the first four charges was unsafe and must be quashed; however the sentences of the second and third appellants were upheld as appropriate.
31 Dec 1974
Minor descriptive discrepancy in the charge did not invalidate the prosecution; the first confession was admissible and conclusive; although the second confession was improperly admitted it did not render the conviction unsafe; the items were properly characterised as offensive weapons under the Public Order Ordinance; the appellant failed to prove lawful excuse; therefore the conviction stood and the appeal was dismissed.
2 May 1973
The confessional statements were wrongly admitted because the evidence did not sufficiently prove voluntariness (the prosecution must prove voluntariness by factual account, not mere assertion), but the convictions stand because, applying the proviso, the independent identification evidence was sufficient to ensure no substantial miscarriage of justice; the sentences imposed were appropriate and require no interference.