3 Jan 2024
The Court refused leave because the impugned summing-up and directions were proper, the challenged remarks were reasonable in context given the admitted post-record and forensic evidence, the alleged errors were not reasonably arguable, and the conviction was safe.
20 Apr 2023
The court held that no duty arose to direct the jury on unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter because the cautioned statement, when read in its full factual and evidential context (surrender, solicitor evidence, arraignment and consistent defence of provocation), supported only the provocation defence and did not present an obvious alternative on the evidence; therefore failure to direct did not amount to substantial and grave injustice.
30 Dec 2020
The appellate court upheld the magistrate's findings that CCTV footage, photographs and witness testimony established that the appellant intentionally grabbed the victim's neck without consent and that the defence account of accidental contact from loss of balance was not supported by the evidence; accordingly the conviction was safe and was upheld.
5 Mar 2013
The appeal was allowed because material discrepancies in witness accounts (clothing, build, timing) and inconsistencies about identification were not satisfactorily resolved by the magistrate; those unresolved discrepancies created reasonable doubt as to identity and intent, rendering the conviction unsafe.
19 Jan 2011
Although prosecuting counsel's cross-examination raised inadmissible matters and was improper, the failure to object at trial and the defence's subsequent reliance on the same matters by calling the co-accused meant no material prejudice occurred; the convictions and admissions of the co-accused were integral to the defence, so additional directions about using those convictions were not required; the judge's directions about collateral investigations were clear and sufficient; therefore the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
8 Dec 2009
The conviction was upheld because the appellant's own sworn testimony and a voluntarily made cautioned statement both admitted he kissed PW1 in retaliation; there was no evidence of lawful justification and the appellant's post‑trial assertions of counsel failure or additional facts were speculative and unsupported, so no miscarriage of justice was shown.
16 Oct 2009
The learned Magistrate properly accepted PW1's evidence and found that the appellant arranged and participated with an unknown male in assault and consequent threats; the Magistrate was entitled to accept inculpatory parts and reject exculpatory parts of the cautioned statement; the failure to amend Charge 3 was an oversight remediable on appeal under s.27 Magistrates Ordinance, therefore the convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Aug 2005
The trial judge's findings that the oral admissions and post-record were admissible and that the prosecution evidence was clear, cogent and compelling were proper and not reasonably arguable on appeal; the sentence of two years and six months was not manifestly excessive and thus the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.
31 May 2005
Given the defence case that the alleged rape did not occur, the trial judge was entitled to exercise discretion not to draw attention to the applicant's cautioned statement or to focus on consent; that omission was not an arguable departure from accepted norms constituting substantial and grave injustice and therefore leave to appeal was properly refused.
5 Nov 2004
The application to admit fresh ICAC evidence was refused because the evidence could have been discovered with due diligence and, even if admitted, would not render the conviction unsafe; the learned Magistrate properly considered the cautioned statement and PW1's credibility, therefore the conviction was upheld.