Read the full judgment text of CACC 000456/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 July 2000 before Stuart-Moore VP, Leong and Wong JJA.
Criminal law – drug trafficking – heroin – appeal against conviction – whether jury subjected to material irregularity or pressure during late retirement – whether Recorder's decision to allow jury to continue deliberating for approximately one more hour was a proper exercise of judicial discretion – Recorder had repeatedly emphasised jury was under no pressure of time and that accused were entitled to fresh and concentrated mind – foreman had expressly acknowledged there was 'no guarantee' that verdicts had to be returned within the hour – jury had been deliberating since 11.30 a.m. and returned verdicts at approximately 8.37 p.m. – no merit in jury pressure ground – D1's homemade grounds alleging PW4 had admitted lying, that he was misled by Fong Tak-kei into admitting guilt, that he did not know the drugs jargon, and other factual matters – all without merit – D1 did not give evidence at trial – D3's complaints about the trial interpreter, a juror's letter (which was in fact read out in open court), the Recorder's reference to a 1985 gambling conviction, the alleged mistake over his pager number, the Recorder's reference to his attending the police station voluntarily, the Recorder's comments on the role of the informer, the 'Ah Wai' reference in D1's statement, and the absence of an express direction on lying – all without merit – Recorder gave proper direction that contents of D1's statement could only be evidence against D1 and not against D3 – Recorder's directions on burden and standard of proof were clear and impeccable – prosecution's case rested on observations and conversations related by undercover officers – case arose from undercover operation involving two drug transactions on 4 and 10 March 1998 involving 304.35g and 4.9kg of heroin hydrochloride – all applications for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether jury subjected to material irregularity or pressure during late retirement · Whether Recorder's directions on burden of proof were adequate (D3's complaint about lack of express direction on lying) · Whether Recorder's comments about the informer were unfair to D3
Outcome: All applications for leave to appeal against conviction are dismissed.
Cites 2 cases