24 May 2024
The judge sufficiently explained the purpose and effect of the admitted WhatsApp exhibits in the context of the narrow issue of the defendant's knowledge; the exhibits were defence‑produced admitted facts, the jury were directed on burden and standard of proof and invited to assess all circumstantial evidence; no materially arguable misdirection was shown and leave to appeal was refused.
20 Jan 2022
The Court held the Magistrate acted properly in intervening and was best placed to assess credibility; the Magistrate's rejection of the appellant's exculpatory account was reasonable on the admitted facts; absence of defendant DNA did not negate possession or trafficking and the male DNA report undermined the girlfriend defence; on authorities and the totality of evidence the findings of dealing/trafficking were open and the conviction was safe, so the appeal was dismissed.
5 Nov 2020
The judge lawfully rejected the applicant's evidence of a bulk purchase, properly accepted the police evidence of furtive behaviour and inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts, and on the whole evidence the only reasonable inference was trafficking; the sole ground of appeal was not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused.
25 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal refused because the judge gave correct and balanced directions, the disputed evidential gaps did not render the trial unfair, the issues were factual for the jury whose verdict was not impeached, and no bias or procedural unfairness was demonstrated.
22 Oct 2018
Paragraph 8 of the Admitted Facts, which estimated market value using average retail price per gram without regard to the unusually low purity of the sample, was inaccurate and materially influenced the trial judge’s inference of trafficking; because the prosecution failed to disclose relevant purity/price information, the conviction for trafficking was unsafe and must be quashed; substitution to a possession conviction under s83A CPO was appropriate and the appellant was sentenced for possession, with a non‑custodial fine imposed due to exceptional circumstances created by the mandatory DATC…
26 Sept 2016
The judge lawfully weighed the totality of evidence (CCTV, fingerprints, telephone records and the co-accused's testimony), reasonably resolved perceived discrepancies regarding T-shirt colour as matters of perception and weight, implicitly rejected the unsupported cautioned denial, and made no reviewable error; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
19 Dec 2012
Defence counsel's decision to withhold detailed evidence about a third party's drug history and to admit certain facts was a legitimate, considered tactical choice made with the applicant's informed consent; it did not amount to flagrant incompetence or deny the applicant a fair trial, therefore leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
2 Sept 2010
Although defence counsel erred in agreeing that the CCTV recorder malfunctioned, the error did not render the trial unfair because the applicant chose not to call available evidence (Madam Ho) that could have supported allegations of police interference and the overall evidence against the applicant was strong; the high threshold for counsel incompetence vitiating a trial was not met, so leave to appeal was dismissed.
30 Oct 2008
The Court held that informing the jury of the co-defendant's guilty plea did not prejudice the applicant and in fact assisted the defence; the absence of the exact specimen direction that the defendant should be acquitted if his account is or may be true was not a material omission because the judge's clear directions on burden and standard of proof and explicit statements that the jury must acquit if not sure adequately protected the applicant; the challenged comments were not impermissibly strong such as to cause injustice. Accordingly the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
6 Oct 2008
The Magistrate, having seen and heard PW1, was entitled to find PW1 credible on the central issue; the parts of PW1's evidence disbelieved were peripheral and did not undermine the finding that the appellant claimed to be a member of Sun Yee On, therefore the appellate court must defer and the conviction is confirmed.