Read the full judgment text of CACC 000129/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 August 1994 before Macdougall V-P, Litton JA, Kaplan JA.
Criminal law – blackmail – arson – appeal against conviction – misdirection on good character – appeal against sentence – unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict – The first applicant was convicted of blackmail after a trial and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment. The trial judge directed the jury that the applicant's clear criminal record was 'neither here nor there' and only went to credibility. The Court of Appeal held this was a serious misdirection, depriving the applicant of the benefit of good character on credibility and likelihood of offending. The conviction was quashed as unsafe and unsatisfactory. The second applicant pleaded guilty to blackmail and arson, receiving 2 years and 5 years consecutive. He argued the sentences were too heavy given his minor role and clear record. The court refused leave, holding that blackmail and arson are serious crimes, especially when arson reinforces blackmail demands, and the sentences were not excessive.
Legal issues: Direction on good character · Sentence appeal for Lam Wai-man
Outcome: Appeal allowed for Chan Wing-shing; conviction quashed and sentence set aside. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused for Lam Wai-man.