5 Aug 1992
The detailed and unchallenged fingerprint and palmprint identification evidence together with the trial judge’s comprehensive summing‑up and full consideration of alibi meant there was no doubt as to the safety of the verdicts; no proper reasons were shown to grant leave to appeal against sentence out of time; thus both applications were refused.
20 Dec 1990
The trial judge's directions were legally adequate; there was no evidential basis to treat Yen as an accomplice or trafficker for these drugs; the contested summing-up taken in context did not materially mislead the jury; the admitted evidence (keys in applicant's possession, fingerprint and palmprint in the room and the drugs found) was sufficient for conviction and thus the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 Oct 1986
Conviction appeals dismissed because the cautioned statement and palmprint evidence were admissible and sufficient; sentence appeals allowed and reduced from 18 to 12 years for the two appellants because of an unjustifiable disparity with a co-offender and relevant precedent distinguishing firearms carried but not discharged.
29 May 1984
Although the physical evidence (palmprints) was strong, the cumulative failings in the judge's summing-up — including overstating Crown submissions, mis-stating key witness testimony about numbers in the car, advancing prosecutorial inferences beyond counsel's case, and failing to clarify the jury's request before a 5-2 majority verdict — produced an unsafe trial; the convictions were therefore quashed and sentences set aside.