30 Jan 2007
Leave to appeal was granted because the trial judge may have impermissibly treated PW2's evidence of PW1's description as proof of identification, a use that could affect the safety of the conviction; accordingly the applicant was granted leave and legal aid to appeal.
21 Mar 2002
The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, certifying as points of law of great and general importance whether silence by a person in authority can amount to inducement to confess (and whether a specific finding is required), and whether statutory and procedural safeguards concerning leave applications and orders for loss of time under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap.221, including potential conflicts with art.11(4) Bill of Rights and art.39 Basic Law and natural justice requirements, warrant appellate consideration.
3 Nov 2000
It is not permissible for the prosecution to rely on differences between the confessional statements of two or more co-accused for the purpose of refuting allegations that those confessions were concocted by police because such comparisons are inherently of little probative value when properly cautioned and are attended by prejudice and danger of misuse; the convictions must be quashed and a retrial ordered.
7 Apr 2000
The court certified for the Court of Final Appeal the specific point whether the prosecution may rely on differences between confessional statements of co-accused to rebut allegations of police fabrication, and granted leave to appeal under s.32(2) Cap.484 on both limbs (point of law of great and general importance and substantial and grave injustice); no final determination on the substantive question was made at this stage.
26 Nov 1997
The judge's directions, when read as a whole, adequately instructed the jury to assess both the prosecution's evidence (including the alleged confession) and the defence alibi, to apply the proper burden and standard of proof, and therefore there was no misdirection warranting leave to appeal; the application was dismissed.
26 Sept 1995
The trial judge properly considered the issues raised, accepted the prosecution witnesses after lawful refreshment from contemporaneous notes and assessed the confessional evidence; absent a clear basis to overturn credibility findings or show a miscarriage of justice, the convictions stand and leave to appeal is refused.
21 Mar 1995
The properly admitted confession together with corroborative circumstantial evidence rendered the conviction safe despite lack of positive identification, and the five year sentence was appropriate given the use of a knife, the victim's young child present and the appellant's prior convictions.
7 Jul 1994
Although the trial judge used an imprecise phrase, the summing up as a whole made clear that the burden remained on the prosecution to disprove provocation beyond reasonable doubt; the isolated wording did not misplace the burden and the convictions and life sentences were safe and affirmed.
30 Mar 1993
The trial judge's direction that lies 'would be evidence going to proof of' guilt was a misdirection, but given the jury's acceptance that the defendant's innocent explanation was a lie, the presence of inculpatory statements and clear forensic evidence of deliberate arson, the misdirection did not render the convictions unsafe; leave to appeal was granted but the appeal dismissed and convictions affirmed.
4 Sept 1991
Trial judge's directions on mixed cautioned statements were legally erroneous because they effectively excluded unsworn explanatory material from the jury's consideration contrary to the approach in Duncan/Sharp as adopted in Hong Kong; directions on foresight/intent were also inapt and potentially misleading in the circumstances. Those errors went to the heart of the central issue (intention) and rendered the murder convictions of Chan and Fok unsafe; accordingly the appeals were allowed and the question of retrial or substitution reserved for further hearing.