HKSAR v. Conte Gaoussou
Read the full judgment text of CACC 112/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 June 2024.
1. On 2 April 2019, after a trial before Toh J (the Judge) and a jury, the appellant was convicted of a single count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 931.40 grammes of a solid containing 696.90 grammes of cocaine. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 5 cases
|
CACC 112/2019 [2024] HKCA 548 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 112 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 38 OF 2017) _______________
_______________
__________________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT __________________________________ Hon Zervos JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court): 1.On 2 April 2019, after a trial before Toh J (the Judge) and a jury, the appellant was convicted of a single count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely, 931.40 grammes of a solid containing 696.90 grammes of cocaine. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. 2.On 11 April 2019, the appellant applied for leave to appeal against conviction. After filing perfected grounds of appeal against conviction on 24 September 2019 and 20 January 2020, Mr John Hemmings, for the appellant, advanced eight grounds which were addressed by the Single Judge in his leave judgment dated 23 October 2020.[1] He refused the appellant leave to appeal on those grounds except for one (Ground 4), which was a question of law and did not require leave. 3.At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appellant’s appeal and ordered two months loss of time. We said we would hand down our reasons for our decisions in due course, and these are our reasons. The prosecution case 4.The prosecution case was that the appellant, a Form 8 recognizance holder, had gone to Kam Tin Post Office at about 9:30 am on 25 July 2016 to claim a parcel by presenting a Speedpost Notification card (Exhibit P46) and his own Form 8 identification document (Exhibit P72). The parcel, which arrived in Hong Kong from the Philippines on 18 July 2016, contained motor spare parts with the cocaine in question concealed inside (worth more than $1 million). The parcel was addressed to Muroki Esther Wambuku at an address in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon. An officer of Kam Tin Post Office (PW1) refused the appellant’s claim because he did not have a photocopy of the valid identification of the addressee named on the Speedpost Notification card. About five minutes later, the appellant returned to the Post Office and requested PW1 to answer his mobile telephone. PW1 refused, and the appellant left. 5.The appellant located and went to a cyber cafe, the Yuen Fat Company, situated opposite the Post Office. He asked the technician at the cafe (PW3) to give him the email address of the cafe and to print out an incoming email for him. While the appellant was waiting for the incoming email, a man came into the cafe at 1:17 pm and asked PW3 to make a photocopy of a document. That man spoke to the appellant in English and then handed him a document, although PW3 was unable to tell if it was the one he had photocopied. About half an hour later, PW3 made a printout of an incoming email, which included a copy of a passport document with the typed name, Muroki Esther Wambuku, and gave it to the appellant. The appellant went back to the Post Office. 6.The photocopy of the passport handed to the appellant by the man who arrived in the cafe, which was later seized from the appellant, showed the name of Muroki Esther Wambuku handwritten over Tippex in two places on the photograph and particulars page of the passport (Exhibit P45). However, the appellant did not use this photocopy but waited for another copy (Exhibit P42) to arrive by email in the cafe. This second copy (Exhibit P42) had the name of Muroki Esther Wambuku, apparently typed in the particulars of the passport holder. However, the name of the passport holder in the computerised name and number details (also typed) on the same page was Kenathunan Mwanakombo Mohamed. It was apparent that both Exhibits P45 and P42 were false. 7.The appellant eventually obtained the parcel by presenting Exhibit P46, Exhibit 42 and his own Form 8 identification document, which was four hours since he first attended the Post Office. At about 1:45 pm, the appellant was arrested by a Customs officer (PW5) as he left the Post Office carrying the parcel (Exhibit P40) and Exhibit P42. The appellant was also found to be in possession of Exhibit P45 , Exhibit P46, two pieces of paper with handwriting (Exhibit P44), two mobile telephones (Exhibit P47 and Exhibit P51) and $665 in cash. Under caution, he stated that he did not know the contents of the parcel. He further stated that it was his friend who asked him to collect the parcel and that he was supposed to call his friend after he had collected the parcel. 8.While the appellant was being interrogated by PW5, his mobile telephone rang several times. He asked if he could answer the call. PW5 told him that unless he spoke in English rather than Igbo, the appellant’s native tongue, he could not do so. Consequently, none of the telephone calls were answered. 9.In a subsequent video recorded interview on 26 July 2016, the appellant said that on 24 July 2016 his friend “Jude”, a Nigerian, mentioned he had something to be collected in Kam Tin. At about 8:00 am the following day, Jude gave a notification card to the appellant and asked him to collect the parcel, which he said contained samples of motor parts, on his behalf. Jude told the appellant that he would buy him food and drink afterwards. The appellant arrived in Kam Tin at about 9:00 am. After the appellant informed Jude by telephone that the staff of the Post Office had refused to let him collect the parcel and that he was leaving, Jude pleaded with him to wait and asked him to go to a cyber cafe near the Post Office and collect an identification document, which he would send by email. While the appellant was waiting for the printout of the document (Exhibit P42), a friend of Jude’s, whom the appellant did not know, arrived and gave him Exhibit P45. 10.The prosecution, in support of its case, relied on, amongst other things, CCTV footage from the Post Office and the cafe situated opposite. A forensic examination on one of the appellant’s mobile telephones revealed that a telephone call was made to 24017954, the Sham Shui Po Delivery Office of Hong Kong Post, at 8:43 am on 25 July 2016. This telephone number was shown on one of the pieces of paper together with other contact numbers of post offices found on the appellant (Exhibit P44). At about 9:54 am on the same day, the same telephone received a call from the telephone number, 64601847, shown on the address label of the parcel, which lasted for about 99 seconds. The defence case 11.The appellant elected to testify and called a defence witness, Ms Ngugi Sarah Muthoni (DW2). The appellant’s evidence corresponded with his account in his video recorded interview. He maintained that he was just helping a friend collect the parcel and had no knowledge of the presence of cocaine. He explained that he had been educated in Ghana. He had been in the business of trading motor parts for about 10 or 11 years before he came to Hong Kong in 2015; since then, he has been a Form 8 recognizance holder. In July 2016, he was receiving International Social Services (ISS) coupons but his transport money of $200 per month had already stopped for two months. 12.On 25 July 2016, when he returned a missed telephone call from Jude, he was asked to write down two sets of numbers and a name on a piece of paper and met up with him at a K11 shop in Tsim Sha Tsui. At about 7:00 to 8:00 am, at K11, Jude gave the appellant another piece of paper with four lines of numbers and words (Exhibit P44), together with Exhibit P46. The appellant then set off for Kam Tin Post Office, firstly by train to Kam Tin and then by taxi. He arrived at the Post Office at about 9:00 am. In cross-examination, he accepted that he had been in Kam Tin for some four hours in order to collect the parcel. 13.As for Exhibits P42 and P45, the appellant said he did not check the particulars on either copy of the passport. He said he merely looked at the respective photographs. He denied knowledge of the presence of the cocaine concealed inside the parcel. He also denied waiting for Exhibit P42 because he thought the staff at the Post Office might not accept Exhibit P45 as genuine. 14.DW2 gave evidence on behalf of the defence. She was from Kenya and serving a sentence of 9 ½ years’ imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs. She testified that she knew the person called Esther, who was dealing in dangerous drugs. Through her, she met a man called KC, whom she identified as the person in a photograph adduced into evidence (Exhibit D2). She said that several days before she was arrested on 28 July 2016 she had gone to Kam Tin with Esther. When they arrived, Esther showed her the location of the Post Office and told her to go there to find KC. She did as she was told and saw KC inside the Post Office. She said KC told her to get out of the Post Office as there were people following her. She then left. The defence suggested that she was there to collect the parcel that was eventually collected by the appellant. The grounds of appeal 15.As summarised by the Single Judge, the original grounds were as follows. In Ground 1, nine particulars in the summing-up were set out, in which it was suggested that the Judge failed to deliver a fair and balanced summing-up by making numerous detrimental comments about the defence case and the appellant’s evidence, whilst failing to highlight those points in his favour. Ground 2, averred that the Judge gave the jury an erroneous good character direction, which was accepted was a slip of the tongue but nonetheless may have misled them. Ground 3, complained that the effect of the various directions and omissions seriously undermined the credibility of the appellant and his case, which effect could not be cured by directions to the jury that it was a matter for them. Ground 4, complained that the Judge, in her directions in respect of circumstantial evidence, suggested that there was an onus on the defence to cast doubt on the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Ground 5, complained that the Judge wrongly directed the jury that the appellant taking a taxi to the Post Office, his lengthy wait for the parcel, and his use of one passport copy rather than the other were matters from which the jury could draw an inference against the appellant on the issue of his knowledge. At the same time, the Judge failed to direct the jury on how these matters could give rise to an irresistible inference that the appellant had the requisite knowledge. Ground 6, alleged that the Judge mistakenly summarised the evidence as to the period of time the appellant had waited for the passport copy to arrive. Ground 7, alleged that the Judge wrongly directed the jury on the evidence as to whether the appellant looked at the passport with the handwritten name. Ground 8, averred that the Judge omitted to direct the jury not to draw any adverse inference against the appellant in respect of the false passport copy which the appellant showed to the Post Office staff, since neither PW1 nor the supervising Customs officers apparently noticed its falsity at the time either. 16.The Single Judge refused leave to the appellant on all the grounds except for Ground 4, which was a question of law and did not require leave. The question of law sought to challenge whether Specimen Direction 21 issued by the Hong Kong Judicial Institute was correctly drawn, or whether it reversed the onus of proof in respect of cases dependent upon circumstantial evidence.[2] The Single Judge gave detailed reasons for finding the refused grounds not to be reasonably arguable. He also informed the appellant that he would be liable to a loss of time order if the appellate court was of the view that there was no justification for renewing the refused grounds. 17.On 30 October 2020, the appellant filed a notice of renewal of application of the refused grounds of appeal. However, the solicitors for the appellant, in a letter dated 20 November 2020, informed the court that they had instructions from the appellant to file grounds of appeal in substitution to the handwritten grounds stated in the notice of renewal and sought leave to file a copy version of reamended substituted perfected grounds of appeal dated 20 November 2020 signed by Mr Hemmings in this document. The previous grounds of appeal were deleted except for Ground 4. On 7 December 2020, the court granted leave to the appellant to reamend the previous grounds of appeal and noted that because the Single Judge granted leave on a question of law, the filing of the renewal application was not necessary, and it was returned. Mr Hemmings filed reamended substituted perfected grounds of appeal against conviction on 14 December 2020, in which he deleted the grounds except for Ground 4, and a written submission in support of this ground on 21 December 2020. 18.The hearing of the appeal was originally listed for 14 July 2021. However, on 16 June 2021, upon a joint application by the appellant and the respondent, the hearing was vacated pending the outcome HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [3], which was concerned with the same question of law on appeal. On 7 June 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Khaw Kim Sun, rejecting the argument under this ground and upholding the specimen direction. The issue was taken on appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. On 6 June 2023, the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal held that the direction was unimpeachable and refused leave to appeal.[4] The Court of Final Appeal’s main judgment in Khaw Kim Sun was handed down on 21 November 2023, allowing the appeal in respect of the trial judge’s treatment of an evidential matter in her directions to the jury.[5] 19.During this period, the appellant had written numerous letters to the court inquiring why the hearing of his appeal was vacated and complaining that he had not heard from his legal representatives as to the progress of his case. He was repeatedly informed to consult the legal representatives assigned to him by the Legal Aid Department. The appellant had legal aid for his appeal on Ground 4 but after subsequent changes to his legal representation and the Appeal Committee’s decision in Khaw Kim Sun, the appellant’s appeal aid certificate was discharged on 7 September 2023. He then continued to act in person. 20.On 18 July 2023, the appellant wrote to the court, stating that in addition to the previous Ground 4 he would be relying on three other grounds. He followed this up with a series of letters to the court dated 31 October 2023, 15 December 2023, 25 January 2024, 2 February 2024, 28 February 2024 and 11 April 2024, in which he repeated or added complaints about his case that he said were grounds he would argue in the renewal application. 21.On 27 November 2023, the appellant filed a notice of renewal of application after refusal by the Single Judge on 23 October 2020, which was almost three years out of time. On 8 March 2024, the court issued a direction that the letters dated 31 October 2023, 25 January 2024, 2 February 2024 and 28 February 2024 would together stand as the appellant’s grounds of appeal in his renewal application. As best we can, we have distilled the appellant’s complaints from those letters into the following grounds and have included in the list the previous Ground 4, for which leave was granted (but subsequently answered by the Appeal Committee’s decision in Khaw Kim Sun on 6 June 2023): Ground 1: The trial judge in her directions in respect of circumstantial evidence suggested that there was an onus on the defence to cast doubt on the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution (previous Ground 4 before the Single Judge); Ground 2: The trial judge failed to deliver a fair and balanced summing-up (previous Ground 1); Ground 3: The Single Judge did not consider the facts of Ground 5 (the direction on how to draw inference on the issue of the appellant’s knowledge) before finding this ground was not reasonably arguable (previous Ground 5); Ground 4: It was wrong for the Single Judge to find “the fact that the forgery of Exh P42 was not apparently noticed by either the Post Office staff or the supervising Customs officer (Ground 8) does not seem to me to be material at all” (previous Ground 8); Ground 5: The photograph of Jude was adduced into evidence in the first trial (which resulted in a hung jury) but not in the retrial (new ground); Ground 6: The trial judge did not treat the evidence of Ms Ngugi Muthoni Sarah (DW2) in the same manner as the judge in the first trial. The judges also summed up the case in the two trials differently (new ground); Ground 7: The judge in the first trial mentioned in the summing-up that Ms Muroki Esther Wambuku (Jude’s girlfriend) had been deported back to Kenya without being prosecuted whereas in the retrial the judge did not (new ground). 22.At the hearing of this appeal, the appellant confirmed that the above seven grounds were correct and that he wished to advance them before us, notwithstanding he was at risk of receiving a loss of time order because of the lack of merit regarding those grounds. Ground 1: the direction on circumstantial evidence 23.The appellant’s complaint about the specimen direction on circumstantial evidence had been considered in HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun. In Khaw’s case, the applicant sought certification and leave in respect of the following question of law, namely “whether a direction that good or reliable evidence or evidence of sufficient reliability and strength is required to cast doubt on the prosecution case places a burden on the defendant to prove his innocence?” The Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal held that the direction was unimpeachable, emphasising that:[6]
24.In his letter dated 25 January 2024, the appellant contended that as the appeal in HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [7] was allowed, so should his appeal be allowed. As we have already pointed out, the appeal in Khaw Kim Sun was allowed on an entirely different point. The appellant was fully aware that this was the case but still persisted with the application. 25.In his letter dated 2 February 2024, the appellant attached communications in 2022 and 2023 from his legal representatives, in which he was informed that his case had been placed in abeyance pending the outcome of Khaw Kim Sun’s appeal as this was his “remaining” ground of appeal; and that the appeal in Khaw Kim Sun was unsuccessful on this legal point. Moreover, he was told that there was no merit in this ground of appeal and that his appeal did not have a realistic prospect of success. 26.The appellant unnecessarily persisted with this ground of appeal. Ground 2: the summing-up was unfair and unbalanced 27.The present case was relatively straightforward and as stated by defence counsel in his closing address to the jury, “the nub of the case”[8] was whether the appellant knew there were drugs in the parcel, where “much of the evidence is not disputed”[9]. 28.This ground set out nine particulars in the summing-up, in which it was suggested that the Judge failed to deliver a fair and balanced summing up by making detrimental comments about the defence case, whilst failing to highlight points in the defence’s favour. In particular (a), it was complained that the Judge highlighted the main points relied upon by the prosecution to prove knowledge but only paid lip service to the defence case, even though it had been summarised by the Judge. In particulars (b), (c) and (d), it was complained that the Judge failed to make certain observations and properly direct the jury in respect of the evidence that the Customs officer insisted the appellant speak in English when answering a telephone call after his arrest, but the Judge did no more than summarise the evidence. In particular (e), it was complained that the Judge said of the appellant that he was not an entirely innocent young man when discussing his background as a businessman but this remark in context had no adverse effect, and no issue was taken over it. In particulars (f), (g), (h) and (i), it was complained that the Judge’s comments concerning the appellant’s evidence regarding Jude’s instructions and the receipt and details of the copy passports were inappropriate, but these were reasonable observations for the jury to consider, which the Judge emphasised was entirely for them to decide. We did not consider the matters individually or cumulatively were unbalanced or unfair. 29.In determining whether a summing-up was unfair or unbalanced, an appellate court will examine the judge’s impugned instruction or direction in the context of the summing-up as a whole. In her summing-up, the Judge emphasised with the jury that any view she expressed concerning the facts or emphasis she placed on a particular aspect of the evidence they should ignore if they did not agree with it, as they were the sole judges of the facts.[10] She comprehensively summarised the evidence presented for the prosecution and the defence and identified the issues for the jury to consider, highlighting where appropriate the defence case. The appellant was particularly critical of the Judge’s instructions to the jury on the issue of knowledge and the drawing of an inference, which he contended was unfair to him. We did not agree. On the issue of knowledge, she properly directed the jury in accordance with the specimen direction. On drawing inferences, she first explained the law on inferences, then described the facts and evidence on which the prosecution relied and she then contrasted it by repeating defence counsel’s argument that the appellant’s conduct was consistent with an innocent person. 30.There was no merit in this ground of appeal. Grounds 3 and 4: the Single Judge’s reasoning on drawing an inference 31.We dealt with these two grounds together as they concerned complaints of the Single Judge’s reasoning when addressing the direction on drawing an inference of guilt against the appellant. 32.We should state at the outset that the complaint against the Single Judge’s reasoning in respect of the previous Ground 5 (wrongly directing the jury on how to draw an inference against the appellant on the issue of knowledge) and Ground 8 (omitting to direct the jury not to draw an adverse inference against the appellant since neither the Post Office staff nor the Customs officer noticed Exhibit P42 was false) is neither a ground of appeal nor a renewed ground of appeal. When an applicant makes a renewal application for leave to appeal a refused ground of appeal, he or she is seeking leave afresh on the original ground before the Court of Appeal and therefore needs to address the merits of the ground and, where necessary, any criticism or argument against such ground. The appellant failed to adequately focus on the merits of the renewed grounds by concentrating on challenging the Single Judge’s reasoning in rejecting them. We considered the appellant’s criticism of the Single Judge’s reasoning totally unjustified, and we have come to the same conclusion as the Single Judge in respect of these grounds.[11] 33.It was accepted in the leave hearing that the Judge’s direction on inferences could not be faulted, and the relevant circumstances were before the jury that, if they found proved, were capable of giving rise to an irresistible inference. The Single Judge said:[12]
34.The Single Judge also noted, and we agree, that Exhibits P42 and P45, were particularly incriminating against the appellant. It was entirely open to the jury to reject the appellant’s account and find he must have known he was producing a false copy of a passport in order to collect the parcel. 35.The appellant submitted that the Single Judge was wrong to reject his argument that the falsity of the copy passport (Exhibit P42) was not apparent because it had been accepted by the Post Office staff and the Customs officer. The Single Judge, in rejecting this argument, explained:[13]
36.The appellant took issue with the Single Judge’s reasoning when addressing the previous Ground 8. He sought to make the point that if the Post Office staff or the Customs officer had not notice that Exhibit P42 was a forgery, he would not have noticed it was a forgery either. There was no substance to this point because the applicant arranged to obtain a copy of a passport in the identity of the addressee of the parcel and had another copy of the passport, Exhibit P45, with the name handwritten on the copy document. He had two copy versions of the passport. It was open to the jury to find that the appellant knew Exhibit P42 was false in light of all the circumstances, including the nature and form of Exhibits P42 and P45 and how he obtained and used them. 37.We did not find the renewed grounds of appeal to be reasonably arguable. Grounds 5, 6 and 7: the treatment of factual and evidential matters 38.Grounds 5 (failure to adduce into evidence the photograph of Jude), 6 (DW2’s evidence was not summed up in the same manner as the first trial) and 7 (the Judge failed to mention that Jude’s girlfriend had been deported) are new grounds of appeal and will be dealt with together. They were concerned about how factual and evidential matters were treated differently in the appellant’s trial from his first trial. Where new grounds are raised after refusal of leave by the Single Judge, the Court of Appeal would consider them as an application for an extension of time to file new grounds of appeal that were not previously argued and “more stringent rules of practice apply to out-of-time applications”: HKSAR v Kalawila [14]. The appellant had offered no explanation on his failure to raise the new grounds before the Single Judge, when he was still legally represented. He responded in a letter dated 15 December 2023 that he had mentioned these matters to his then counsel. The respondent submitted that the appellant had provided no adequate explanation. In particular, it was noted that the appellant had filed to court a handwritten letter dated 18 July 2023 about the matters he would like to raise in the appeal whilst being legally represented, but he had not raised anything relating to the items under these grounds before and at the hearing of the leave application. 39.We did not accept the appellant’s explanation for the late filing of the new grounds. Moreover, we found that the subject matter of the new grounds had no substance to them. What transpired in the first trial was entirely irrelevant as the present appeal/application concerned the conviction after the retrial before another panel of jurors and another hearing judge[15] and where all witnesses testified afresh. 40.As for Ground 5, we had difficulty understanding the forensic value in producing a photograph of someone the appellant said was Jude, particularly when the only evidence of Jude’s identity or existence came from the appellant. His evidence was that he met Jude shortly before the offence. He did not know his name, except that he lived in China and stayed in hotels when he came to Hong Kong. He said Jude was knowledgeable about motor spare parts, and he met him three times in June. The fact that a photograph purporting to be Jude had been produced in the first trial was neither here nor there. 41.As for Ground 6, the Judge fairly summarised DW2’s evidence and no error or mistake had been identified by the appellant in the Judge’s summary of her evidence. Moreover, how DW2’s evidence was summarised in the first trial was irrelevant. 42.As for Ground 7, the arrest and subsequent repatriation of “Esther” was made an admitted fact at the trial.[16] 43.We found that these grounds were devoid of merit and not reasonably arguable. Conclusion 44.It followed from what we had said that we did not find there was merit in the appeal grounds, and the appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. 45.Ground 1, the question of law, had been answered by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal on 6 June 2023, and was unnecessarily maintained despite the fact it had been rejected. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 renewed previous Grounds 1, 5 and 8, for which leave had been refused. These grounds were without merit, and there was no justification for the renewal of them. Grounds 5, 6 and 7 were new grounds that were also without merit. We refused the appellant an extension of time to file these grounds and leave to appeal them as they were not reasonably arguable. Loss of time 46.At the outset of this hearing, we informed the appellant that he was at risk of receiving a loss of time order because of the unmeritorious nature of his appeal. He had a right of appeal on a point of law, which he was informed in June 2023 had been rejected by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal. He nevertheless continued with this ground. He also renewed previous grounds, for which leave had been refused, and raised new grounds. He was informed in clear terms of the lack of merit in the complaints that he had raised and had the benefit of detailed submissions from the respondent. It seems there may have been a breakdown of communications between him and his previous legal representatives, but even taking that into account, he still persisted in advancing totally unmeritorious grounds of appeal. 47.The principles applicable to a loss of time order have been comprehensively discussed by the Court of Final Appeal in Chau Ching Kay v HKSAR [17]. The purpose of a loss of time order is to discourage unmeritorious appeals, so that valuable judicial time and resources can be spent on meritorious ones.[18] The Court stressed that in considering making a loss of time order, a court ought to have regard to all the circumstances of the case:
48.The Court went on to say:
49.When considering making a loss of time order, the starting point will naturally be whether the appeal was totally devoid of merit. Whilst some allowance is given to a person acting without legal representation, it can only go so far. The appellant has written many letters to the court and the parties, in which he has made numerous complaints about his trial that were either the subject or a variation of previous grounds, for which leave was refused, or completely new grounds. He was put on notice that he would be liable for a loss of time order if he advanced unmeritorious renewed or new grounds of appeal. He previously had the benefit of legal representation, but that was ceased after the point of law was unsuccessful on appeal in another case. He nevertheless persisted, causing considerable inconvenience and a substantial waste of resources. In particular, he has expended valuable court time and resources that could have been spent on more pressing and meritorious appeals. We therefore ordered two months loss of time.
Ms Irene Fan, SADPP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent The appellant appeared in person [1] HKSAR v Conte Gaoussou [2020] HKCA 865, CACC 112/2019, 23 October 2020, per Macrae VP. [2] The direction given by the Judge was as follows: “circumstantial evidence ... can be as powerful or even more powerful than direct evidence, but you must examine it with care as with all evidence and consider whether the evidence upon which the prosecution rely in proof of its case is reliable and whether it does prove quilt or whether, on the other hand, it reveals any other circumstances which are or may be of sufficient reliability and strength to cast doubt upon or destroy the prosecution case.” Appeal Bundle (AB), pp 21T-22D. [3] HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [2022] 5 HKC 249. [4] HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [2023] HKCFA 13, FAMC 24/2022, 6 June 2023. [5] HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun (2023) 26 HKCFAR 556, [2023] HKCFA 37. [6] HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun [2023] HKCFA 13, FAMC 24/2022, 6 June 2023, at [3]. [7] HKSAR v Khaw Kim Sun (2023) 26 HKCFAR 556, [2023] HKCFA 37, at [64], [68]-[76]. [8] AB, 68F-H. [9] AB, 71P. [10] AB, 17A-E. [11] Leave Judgment, at [23]-[30]. [12] Leave Judgment, at [26]. [13] Leave Judgment, at [31]. [14] HKSAR v Kalawila [2021] 4 HKLRD 519, at [3] and [46]. [15] The first trial was before Deputy High Court Judge D Yau in 2018. The retrial was before Hon Toh J in 2019. [16] AB, 10, Further Admitted Facts, at [4]-[6]. [17] Chau Ching Kay v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 540. [18] Ibid., at [63] and [69]. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 112/2019