Read the full judgment text of FACC 000006/2002 on BabelCite. This FACC judgment was delivered on 9 April 2003 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Sir Noel Power NPJ and Sir Gerard Brennan NPJ.
Criminal law – dangerous drugs – trafficking in 'ice' (methamphetamine) – presumption of knowledge under s.47(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 – co-defendant calling rebuttal evidence to discredit accused – trial judge's summing up inviting jury to consider whether accused's account was a 'fabrication' – whether lies direction (Lucas/Broadhurst direction) required where lie relied on by co-defendant rather than prosecution – whether lies direction required where trial judge himself highlights lie on a material issue – appellate review of lies direction – whether lies direction is required even where co-defendant, and not the prosecution, seeks to rely on accused's lie – direction that lie in itself can never prove guilt – requirement to warn jury of innocent explanations for lie – whether failure to give lies direction may be cured by application of proviso under s.83 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 – test for application of proviso following Launder v. HKSAR, Stirland v. DPP and Harz – relevance of majority verdict (5 to 2) after lengthy deliberation as factor against applying proviso – credibility of accused as decisive on burden of rebutting statutory presumption on balance of probabilities – appellant's friend Liu Yat Sing was a police informer who involved the appellant without disclosing the true nature of the drug transaction – effect of rebuttal evidence from car park attendant contradicting accused's account of contact with informer – appeal allowed, conviction quashed, sentence set aside and retrial ordered.
Legal issues: Omission of lies direction in respect of the appellant's case · Application of the proviso under s.83 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance
Outcome: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered.
Cited by 4 cases