5 Feb 2018
The Court granted leave to appeal on the certified legal questions concerning the scope and interpretation of s19(2) and its compatibility with the right to a fair trial, while refusing leave on the separate ground of substantial and grave injustice; the Court did not decide the substantive issues on the merits at this stage.
6 Aug 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the issue raised was fact‑specific and academic given the defendant's retrial conviction, and on the facts the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude the defendant had not adduced independent non‑viva voce evidence that would entitle the prosecution to a full closing speech; additionally the prosecutor's speech at trial exceeded permissible bounds.
15 Dec 1999
The appellant crossed onto the opposite carriageway without ensuring it was clear, thereby causing the collision; the trial Magistrate's credibility findings were entitled to deference and the conviction for careless driving was correctly entered, so the appeal must be dismissed.
8 Feb 1985
The Court held that, in a Magistrates' Court, the prosecution has the right to make a closing speech including comment on a defendant's evidence even where the defendant is unrepresented and calls no witnesses, because s.19(1)-(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance distinguishes sworn evidence from 'what each party has to say' and accords parties the right to address the court; authorities concerning trials on indictment with juries are not controlling for magistrates' court proceedings.