R. v. Law Siu Keung

CACC000299/1991

Headnote

Transcripts of Reasons for Verdict delivered on tape must be checked by the trial judge: duty of legal advisors of applicant to draw to judge's attention clearly unchecked Reasons.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

----------

Coram: Silke, V.-P., Power & Macdougall, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 10 January 1992

Date of Judgment: 10 January 1992

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

---------------------

Silke, V.-P.:

1. This is the judgment of the court.

2. This matter is an application for leave to appeal against conviction after trial before His Honour Judge Moylan and was set down for hearing today with a time estimate of two hours, which time estimate was confirmed in the course of the last couple of days.

3. When members of this court were considering the papers it occurred to all of us that the condition of the Reasons for Verdict was most unsatisfactory. What appears to have happened was that the trial judge, quite properly, taped his reasons at the time they were actually being given, that is from the bench at the time the conviction was come to. The transcription of those Reasons for Verdict was placed upon the court file on the same day but it is very apparent that that transcription was not checked. It is full of corruptions and typographical errors which makes it very difficult to understand.

4. The grounds of appeal were filed on 6th January 1992. There is a Notice of Motion, to adduce fresh evidence filed on 8th January, which came to the knowledge of the Crown only on that day or on the subsequent day. Various matters have been raised by Mr. Saw, who appears on behalf of the Crown today, in relation to the grounds of appeal and their conformity with the Practice Direction and also in relation to the contents of the Notice of Motion and as to under which particular provision of s.83V of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance it is being brought. It is not for us to comment upon these matters now. No doubt Mr. Tang, very recently instructed and who appears for the applicant in this court, will have taken note of that which Mr. Saw has said.

5. But it is necessary to have these Reasons for Verdict returned to the trial judge so that those obvious mistranscriptions from the tape can be corrected, and that the Reasons can be made comprehensible.

6. It would be advisable if legal advisors of an applicant - here they came on record in June of 1991 -, or indeed the Crown, when they become aware of a Reasons for Verdict of this nature were to ask a trial judge, politely, to check them. It may be that it was an excess of enthusiasm in order to get the papers rapidly before the court, because the sentence here was one of only 18 months, that has caused the difficulties in which we now find ourselves. It is, however, whatever the circumstances the duty of a trial judge to check, before he signs them, that the Reasons for Verdict, placed on file in accordance with s.80 of the District Court Ordinance, are accurate.

7. We intend to adjourn this matter to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsel. For myself, I would have thought a time estimate of one day would be more apposite than the two hours which are presently allowed.

8. He will grant bail in the single term of $30,000 cash and without the restrictions which were imposed upon the applicant prior to trial. That bail is, of course, for him to appear as and when called upon in this court for the resumption of the application. This will not be treated as part heard.

Representation:

Dixon Tang. Esq. (Ng, Lie, Lai & Chan) for Applicant

D.G. Saw, Esq. for Crown/Respondent