10 Oct 2025
The court awarded the respondent full costs (including certificates for two senior counsel) because none of the appellant's grounds succeeded on appeal, the trial judge's legal error was unrelated to the respondent's acquittal, and there was no respondent conduct or handling of the appeal that wasted court time or justified partial costs; Lai Chee Ying (Costs) was distinguishable on its facts.
5 May 2023
The Court held the judge's shut-eye direction in respect of D1's substantive trafficking charge was a misdirection that risked equating suspicion or deliberate non-inquiry with actual knowledge; that misdirection required quashing D1's conviction and ordering a retrial. By contrast, the directions on the co-conspirator's rule as given were adequate in light of independent evidence linking D3 and D4 to the alleged single conspiracy, so their convictions were upheld.
20 Apr 2022
Bail pending appeal was granted on the time ground because the applicant would likely serve a substantial part of the effective sentence before the rescheduled appeal hearing and the appeal was at least reasonably arguable; respondent did not oppose bail. Grant was made subject to appropriate terms and conditions to be determined with the parties.
28 Jan 2022
Given the factual matrix — the parcel was sent from Malaysia after both appellants were already in Hong Kong, there was no allegation they packed or physically handled the drugs, and the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence of knowledge — the judge's direction that the lack of fingerprint evidence was a neutral factor was appropriate and did not amount to misdirection; the absence of fingerprints did not require a specific favourable direction and the convictions were safe.
17 Dec 2021
The judge erred procedurally by treating the mother's evidence as admissible recent complaint without hearing counsel and making a reasoned ruling on recency; however, on the facts (overwhelming independent evidence on key counts, jury directions limiting use of complaint evidence, and no demonstrable prejudice) the error did not render the convictions unsafe. Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence affirmed.
21 Jul 2021
The Court re‑exercised the s83E discretion, concluded the majority of the Court of Appeal had taken into account irrelevant considerations (attributing tactical misconduct to defence counsel unsupported by evidence), found the cumulative factors (multiple prior trials, long custody, risk of prejudice from lapse of time and the arguable strength of provocation/diminished responsibility defences) meant the interests of justice did not require a further retrial, quashed the order for retrial, entered a conviction for manslaughter on the basis of provocation and imposed a sentence permitting imme…
28 Nov 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because there was a real issue whether the trial judge's direction regarding the absence of fingerprints/DNA had a sufficient evidential basis and whether, in context, that direction amounted to a material misdirection that could have prevented the jury from properly assessing the admitted fact alongside other evidence.
30 Aug 2019
The convictions were quashed because the indictment and the judge's agreed written directions treated particulars (a)–(e) as alternative dishonest means forming part of the conspiratorial agreement, creating a latent duplicity that could have resulted in conviction on different conspiracies or inconsistent combinations of conspirators without jury unanimity; retrial ordered.
30 Aug 2019
Particulars (a)–(e) in the indictment were treated at trial (by indictment language, agreed written directions, and a Kevin Brown direction) as alternative agreed dishonest means forming essential ingredients of the conspiratorial agreements; that framing created a latent duplicity because the jury could have convicted different defendants as parties to different conspiracies aggregated in a single count, undermining unanimity and rendering convictions unsafe — convictions therefore quashed and retrial ordered.
30 Aug 2019
The convictions were quashed because the indictment and agreed written directions treated particulars (a)–(e) as alternative agreed dishonest means forming essential ingredients of the conspiratorial agreements; the judge gave a Kevin Brown direction on those particulars, but that approach produced a latent duplicity risk that jurors may have convicted different appellants on different conspiracies rolled into single counts, thereby undermining required unanimity; retrial ordered and prosecution permitted to amend or prefer fresh indictment.