3 Jan 1996
The magistrate misdirected himself by effectively requiring the appellant to eliminate all reasonable doubt and to prove corrupt motive beyond reasonable doubt. The statutory defence requires an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds assessed by the balance of probabilities using a reasonable person standard; the misdirection warranted quashing the conviction.
20 May 1994
The Court held that (1) Fung was not an accomplice as a matter of law and no accomplice direction was required (s22 reinforced this); (2) s5(a) of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Ordinance is unambiguous and does not require the word 'corruptly' or proof of an antecedent agreement; (3) a Regional Councillor voting in a functional constituency acts in his capacity as a public servant under s4(1)(a) when the gift/offering is made because of that voting capacity (applying Leonard J's test as approved in Ip Chiu); (4) Cheung's out-of-court statement was properly before the jury at defence invit…