16 Aug 1985
The appeal was allowed and conviction quashed because there was insufficient evidence that D3 planned or acted in concert with D1 and D2 when the demands with menaces were made and the trial judge placed undue weight on coincidental presence and fear, creating a sufficiently unsafe verdict to overturn the conviction.
14 May 1982
Although the trial judge's summing-up contained emphatic advocacy and a minor misdirection of fact, read as a whole it did not deny the appellants a fair trial; the judge gave appropriate warnings (including that facts were for the jury and about accomplice evidence) and the underlying facts and evidence were sufficiently strong that the jury would have been persuaded on the evidence alone; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Mar 1982
Majority held that statutory presumptions in ss46 and 47 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, once the appellant's possession of keys was proved beyond reasonable doubt, created a presumptive possession (including knowledge and control) which the appellant failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; the misdirection about eating habits was not material and the proviso allows affirmation of the conviction. Therefore conviction for possession for purpose of trafficking is upheld. One judge dissented on materiality of the misdirection and would have quashed the conviction.