FAMC No. 15 of 2003
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 15 OF 2003 (CRIMINAL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ
Date of Hearing: 5 May 2003
Date of Determination: 5 May 2003
Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:
1. Taking a point not taken in the Court of Appeal, the applicant seeks leave to argue before the Court of Final Appeal that he hassuffered substantial and grave injustice because, quoting from his written application, the trial judge:
This necessarily involves the contention that it is an accepted norm in Hong Kong to direct juries along those lines. Is that contentionwell-founded?
2. Mr Gary Plowman SC for the applicant, arguing ably as always, has cited a number of cases including two decisions of the High Courtof Australia, namely Bromley and Karpany v. R (1986) 161 CLR 315 and Pollitt v. R (1992) 174 CLR 558.
3. The judgments in those two cases are very much concerned with corroboration. In Hong Kong the position is as follows. By s.60 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, the rule whereby a judge was obliged to warn the jury or himself of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidenceof an accomplice was abrogated. And by s.4B of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap.8, the rule whereby a judge was obliged to warn the jury or himself of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidenceof the complainant in a sexual offence case was abrogated. It would be surprising if that left any room for a practice under whicha judge normally warns the jury or himself of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated or unsupported evidence of a prisoninformer.
4. Whether corroborated or uncorroborated and whether supported or unsupported, the evidence of a witness like the one here in questionhas to be approached with particular case. In that regard, as appear in his summing-up, Gall J drew the jury’s attention to the carenecessitated by (i) this witness’s criminal record, (ii) his personal interest to serve in becoming a prosecution witness, (iii)his failure to tell the police about the applicant’s alleged confession, only telling the ICAC about it later, (iv) his grudge againstthe applicant who had assaulted him and (v) the discrepancies between what he had told the ICAC and his evidence in court.
5. Despite the skill and care with which this application has been argued, leave to appeal out of time is refused.
Mr Gary J. Plowman SC (instructed by Messrs Haldanes assigned by Director of Legal Aid) for applicant
Mr B.M. Ryan (of the Department of Justice) for respondent