26 Apr 2021
The particulars as drafted, when read with the Summary of Facts and available video footage, provided reasonable information under the Indictment Rules such that the defendant would not be prejudiced or embarrassed; therefore the application for further and better particulars was refused and the contested charges were not quashed.
26 Jul 2002
The Court held the indictment was sufficiently particularised under Indictment Rules r3(1) and Landy was not offended; the evidence supported a single interlinked conspiracy in respect of each count so Griffiths did not require quashing; the judge's directions that absence of goods need not always be proved by direct evidence were correct in context because non-supply could be inferred from the totality of the evidence; and the sentencing judge was entitled to sentence on the factual matrix established at trial. Consequently leave to appeal against convictions and sentences was dismissed.
13 Dec 2001
The Court held that the indictment's omission of the words 'having shown' meant the charge did not encompass past favours and that the trial judge materially misdirected the jury by repeatedly leaving open conviction for past favours; that misdirection could not be regarded as immaterial and the proviso to s.83(1) did not apply because a reasonable jury properly directed would not inevitably have convicted; accordingly the appellant's conviction on count 1 was quashed and no new trial was ordered.
26 Jul 2001
The Court certified as reasonably arguable and of great and general importance the question whether the judge's direction permitting conviction for 'having shown' favour when the indictment alleged only 'showing' could amount to misdirection and granted leave to appeal on that point and alternatively on substantial and grave injustice; all other points were held not reasonably arguable or not material to the sole count of conviction and certification/leave was refused for them.
11 Apr 2000
The particulars, read as a whole, fairly alleged a conspiracy to engage in bookmaking; the references to "assist" related to the computer's function and not to a distinct offence of assisting others; omission of the phrase "by way of trade or business" in the particulars did not prejudice the accused given the detailed factual allegations; a conspiracy may encompass agreements to commit more than one closely related offence under s159A(1); the trial judge made adequate findings on evidence and his conviction on the conspiracy count was safe.
8 May 1998
The Court held that the statutory scheme for child complainants permitted the use of video-recorded examination in chief and live television cross-examination where the complainant was under the relevant age when recorded and there was no logical basis to cut off special measures once the complainant turned 17; further, where the alleged offending constituted a continuing indistinguishable course of conduct the evidence was sufficient without election and the indictment did not prejudice the defendant, so the convictions were safe.
7 Mar 1997
Because s3 does not require proof of who provided the advantage, the particulars' identification of Mr Lui was not a material averment; the prosecution produced direct evidence of the transfer (cheque deposit and account statement) and corroborative witness evidence, and the applicant failed to show any prejudice from the misdescription, so the conviction was not unsafe.
30 Nov 1987
The appellant's intentional carrying of travel documents, on the evidence, was not capable in law or in fact of constituting an act of assistance or an appreciable contribution to the successful commission of the robbery; the trial judge's direction that 'encouragement' alone sufficed to convict as a principal was inappropriate given the indictment and evidence. Ground 1(iii) succeeds and the conviction is quashed.
13 Aug 1987
The Court held the indictment, jury directions and admission of the Government Chemist's Certificate were lawful and non-prejudicial; the statutory presumption under s.45(2) was properly explained and, read as a whole, the summing-up was adequate; given the quantity of chemicals sufficient to produce about 10 kilos of No.3 heroin and the appellant's role as the trusted custodian of the equipment, the eight-year sentence was appropriate; therefore both the conviction and sentence were upheld.
12 Oct 1984
The trial judge's direction deprived the jury of their proper role in deciding whether the owner (TSUI) instigated or consented to the taking; if TSUI had instigated or consented there was no dishonest intention by the applicants and therefore no robbery; the convictions were unsafe and must be quashed, with a retrial ordered on an amended indictment omitting reference to the fokis (CHAN and LAM).