Hon Pang JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官彭偉昌頒發上訴法庭判案理由書：

This is an appeal from the Court of First Instance of the High Court. The applicant was convicted after trial of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs involving 1,008 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 997 grammes of ICE, 95 tablets containing 1.38 grammes of methamphetamine and 3.31 grammes of herbal cannabis. He was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment by the trial judge (Deputy High Court Judge D Yau). He applied for leave to appeal against conviction.
本案源於高等法院原訟法院。申請人在審訊後被裁定一項販運危險藥物罪成立，涉及內含997克冰毒的1,008克晶狀固體、95片內含1.38克甲基苯丙胺的片劑，以及3.31克草本形態的大麻。原審法官（游德康暫委法官）把他判囚22年。申請人不服，就定罪提出上訴許可申請。

The Facts
案情

The detailed facts of this case are of little significance.  Broadly speaking, on the night of 7 August 2015, the applicant returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland, and at Lo Wu Control Point, Customs officers found in his underpants and his sling bag the dangerous drugs in question. Under caution, he admitted that he delivered ICE for others for a reward of $500, and that he would telephone a person called “Wong Sam” upon his return to Hong Kong. On the night of 8 August of the same year, the applicant made further admissions under caution.
本案的詳細情節並不重要。粗略而言，2015年8月7日晚上，申請人從內地返港，在羅湖管制站被海關人員發現他身藏涉案毒品於他的內褲和斜靠袋之內。警誡下，他承認為500港元酬勞而替人帶運冰毒、回到香港之後會致電一個名叫「黃三」的人。同年8月8日晚上，申請人在警誡下作出進一步的招認。

Prosecution and defence cases
控辯雙方的說法

The prosecution submitted that the applicant brought dangerous drugs into Hong Kong without lawful authority. Such an act constituted trafficking. His admission that he would be handing over the dangerous drugs to others made this more so. The mentioning of ICE, in particular, in his cautioned statement, proved that he knew he was conveying dangerous drugs.
控方指申請人在沒有法律授權下把毒品帶入本港，這個行為本身已構成販運；他承認會把毒品轉交別人，就更是如此。申請人在警誡詞中特別提到「冰」，也證明他知道自己運送的是毒品。

The applicant testified that he thought he was “travelling with parallel goods” or “carrying electronic parts across checkpoints” for Wong Sam, and he would return the stuff to that man upon his return to Hong Kong. He testified that when being searched, he only said, “Got busted this time”, but he never mentioned carrying ICE for others for a reward. Conversely, he claimed that he had asked the Customs officer what had been found and the latter answered, “It might be ICE”.
申請人在作供時指他以為自己在替黃三「走水貨」、「帶電子零件過關」，在返抵香港之後會把東西交回該名男子。他說他被搜身時只說過「今次衰咗」，但絕無提到為酬勞而替人帶「冰」。他反指自己曾問過關員搜出的是甚麼而後者則答「可能係冰」。

The applicant went on to explain in court that Wong Sam and he were parallel goods traders. They had known each other for some time. He, on this occasion, at the request of Wong Sam, went to meet with the latter in Shenzhen. During this time, Wong Sam made him drink a canned drink. After that, the applicant became confused and felt someone tying something underneath his underpants. In confusion, he was then taken to the entrance of the checkpoint and was told to take the sling bag in question to Hong Kong.
申請人在庭上繼續解釋，黃三和他均為水貨客，雙方已認識一段日子。他這次是應黃三的要求到深圳和後者會面。期間，黃三讓他喝下一罐飲品，之後申請人便開始變得迷迷糊糊並感到有人把東西綁進他的內褲之內。接著，他在迷糊中被帶到關口及被囑咐把有關的斜靠袋帶到香港。

The applicant said that he did unzip the sling bag to take a look but only saw melon seeds for human consumption. He had put his hand over his underpants briefly but felt nothing different from the usual electronic parts. As regards his admissions under further caution (in the video-recorded interview) and all the details relating to the actual smuggling of ICE, they were fabricated by the Customs officer(s) and forced on him by various improper means. In any case, he was still confused then and did not recover until two days later in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre.
申請人說，他有打開斜靠袋的拉鍊看過，但只看到供人食用的瓜子。他也曾按一按過自己的內褲，但感覺和平常的電子零件沒有分別。至於他在進一步警誡下（即錄影會面裡）所招認的、和確實偷運冰毒有關的所有細節，那都是由海關關員捏造及以各種不當手段強加於他的，反正他本人當時仍舊迷迷糊糊，要在兩天之後才於荔枝角收押所完全清醒過來。

Course of the trial
原審過程

Given the simple facts of this case, though the prosecution called eight prosecution witnesses (who were all Customs officers) and the applicant elected to give evidence, the entire course of the trial proper (from empanelment of the jury to the completion of the trial judge’s summing-up)  only lasted for about two and a half days (from 10 am on 14 December to 11:30 am on 16 December 2016).
由於本案案情簡單，控方雖然傳召了八名控方證人（他們全為海關關員），而申請人又選擇作供，但整個正審過程（從挑選陪審員至原審法官宣講完他的《導詞》），卻只用了約兩天半的時間（2016年12月14日早上10時至12月16日早上11時30分）。

As for the jury, they did not reach a verdict the day they retired. They retired at 11:34 am on 16 December 2016 (Friday) and stopped at 8:03 pm the same day; they resumed deliberation at 9:38 am on 17 December (Saturday) and returned a guilty verdict against the applicant at 12:19 pm the same day. The guilty verdict was by a majority of five to two.
陪審團方面，他們並未能在退庭當天達致裁決。他們在12月16日（星期五）早上11時34分退庭，同日晚上8時03分休息，12月17日（星期六）早上9時38分恢復討論，同日中午12時19分裁定申請人罪成。有罪裁決的比數是5對2。

Ground of appeal
上訴理由

9.	Mr Ng, who acted for the applicant in the trial, only put forward one ground of appeal which reads:
在原審時已經代表申請人的吳大律師只提出了一個上訴理由，原文如下：

上訴許可申請人被陪審團以5對2大多數裁決裁定一項販運危險藥物罪罪名成立。陪審團長時間商議。原審法官未有在適當時候向陪審團查詢達致裁決的可能性及提醒他們如未能達至裁決便須要通知法官。在整體情況下，原審法官未有適當地行使酌情權，令使陪審團知悉法庭的時間控制及他們並非要無限期商議至作出裁決。定罪有實在危險是陪審團在無形的時間壓力下作出。」	“	The applicant seeking leave to appeal was found guilty of one charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs by the jury who reached a majority verdict of five to two. The jury took a long time to deliberate. The trial judge did not enquire of the jury at an appropriate time as to any prospect of their reaching any verdict, nor did he remind them to inform the judge if they failed to reach a verdict. In all the circumstances, the trial judge did not exercise his discretion appropriately to inform the jury of the time control of the court and that they were not to deliberate indefinitely until a verdict was returned. There was a real risk that the conviction was reached by the jury being put under pressure of time.
「

10.	Mr Ng contended that in this case, the evidence took a total of eight and a half hours, and the prosecution and defence’s closing submissions and the trial judge’s summing-up another three hours. Minus the time for meals and rest at night, the jury still spent about ten hours in deliberating their verdict and finally only brought in a barely sufficient result of five to two. Therefore, they must have encountered difficulties in the course of their discussions. Nevertheless, the trial judge did not provide them with prompt and/or appropriate assistance or guidance.
吳大律師認為，本案的證供合共只有八個半小時，控辯雙方最後陳詞和原審法官的《導詞》再加三小時，但減去用飯和晚上休息的時間之後陪審團卻仍然花了約十小時來商議裁決，而且最後得出的也不外是一個僅僅足夠即5比2的結果，所以陪審團在討論的過程當中必然是遇上了困難，可是原審法官卻沒有向他們提供適時及/或適當的幫助和指引。

11.	For instance, as Lord Lane CJ said in R v Rose [1982] 1 WLR 614, 620 (which the Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom quoted in R v Payne [2001] EWCA Crim 274), depending on the circumstances of the case and the time spent in discussions, the judge should re-assemble the court in due course to make enquiry of the jury as to whether there is any chance of their reaching an agreement in considering whether it is necessary to discharge the jury or to ask them to continue with their discussions on the case. Nevertheless, the trial judge in the present case did not do so.
例如，根據英國上訴庭在R v Payne [2001] EWCA Crim 274一案引述Lord Lane CJ在R v Rose [1982] 1 WLR 614, 620的說法，視乎案件的情況，以及已花在討論的時間，法官應在適當的時候重新開庭，向陪審團查詢是否有達致裁決的機會，以考慮是否需解散陪審團或要求他們繼續就案件進行討論，但本案的原審法官卻沒有這樣做。

12.	The Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom expressed the view in Payne that without making the aforesaid enquiry, the jury might have mistakenly thought that they were left to discuss the case indefinitely and felt under pressure which they ought not to have. Also, in the opinion of Mr Ng, this was more than likely to have happened in the present case.
英國上訴庭在Payne案表示，不作出上述的查詢，陪審團或許會誤以為自己須要作出無限期的討論而感到不應有的壓力，吳大律師亦認為這情況很可能已在本案發生。

13.	Mr Ng further contended that the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom pointed out in R v Court [1995] Crim LR 310 that as a matter of general observation, the judge should keep the jury informed about the timetable and possible implications of the procedures. This principle applies when the jury’s verdict is pending and the judge should intervene in due course.
吳大律師續稱，英國上訴庭在R v Court [1995] Crim LR 310指出，作為一般觀察，法官應讓陪審團知道審訊的進度及其對陪審團所可能產生的影響（the timetable and possible implications of the procedures），這個原則在等候陪審團作出裁決時適用，法官應在適當時介入。

14.	Taking Lincoln De Four v The State [1999] 1 WLR 1731 (PC) as another example, Mr Ng contended that the jury should be explicitly told that in the event of an irreconcilable disagreement over the case, it was their duty to inform the court of it .
吳大律師又以英國樞密院案Lincoln De Four v The State [1999] 1 WLR 1731 (PC) 為例，指陪審團應被明確告知，如果他們對案件產生不可調解的意見，他們便有責任把這個情況告訴法庭。

15.	Finally, by citing a case of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong R v Tam Chi Pang [1986] HKLR 1122, Mr Ng contended that the long period of retirement of the jury is clearly not, of itself, a ground for upsetting a conviction, though there clearly must come a time when this by itself may be sufficient.
最後，吳大律師援引香港上訴庭案例R v Tam Chi Pang [1986] HKLR 1122指出，陪審團退庭商議裁決的時間長，這點本身並不足以推翻定罪，但如果時間實在過長，這點卻絕對可能構成足以推翻定罪的理由。

16.	To conclude, Mr Ng submitted that the indifference of the trial judge in the present case left the jury, who were not able to return a valid verdict after long deliberations, unsure of what to do, rendering their verdict of five to two, which was not reached until the following day, unsafe and unsatisfactory.
總括而言，吳大律師認為，本案原審法官的不聞不問，令經過長時間商討卻未能達致有效裁決的陪審團不知如何是好，以致他們在第二天才作出的5對2裁決變得有欠安全穩妥。

Discussion
討論

17.	The authorities cited by Mr Ng are of no material assistance to the applicant.
吳大律師援引的案例，對申請人並無實質幫助。

18.	For example, the background of Court was that after the jury had deliberated for one day, the defendant was late the following day, causing one of the jurors to worry about whether she could leave the court at midday to attend a wedding. Nevertheless, it was only according to a certain member of the court staff that a juror was in a hurry. The judge was then told about it by defence counsel. The judge himself had never received any request for assistance from the jurors. That being the case, in addition to the fact that before the court adjourned for the first day, the foreman had indicated that an agreement might be reached, and the verdict was reached as early as at 10:02 am the following day, the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom was therefore of the view that there was no evidence that in the result the majority guilty verdict was reached under pressure of time. This is our understanding of that case. As regards the sentence Mr Ng relied on (see paragraph 13 above), it ought to be interpreted in the context of its whole text, with its main point on “the judge was entitled to expect that jurors will raise any personal difficulties they may have”, namely relating to whether or not there was evidence:
例如，Court案的背景，是陪審團經過一天商討之後，被告在第二天遲到，以致有個別陪審員擔心未能趕及在同日中午離開法院出席別人的婚禮。不過，據稱有陪審員趕時間，只是基於某法庭職員的話，然後再由辯方大律師引述給法官知道，法官本身則從未收過任何陪審員的求助。這樣，再加上首席陪審員在第一天散庭前曾表示有望達致裁決，而裁決又早於翌日上午10點零2分達成，所以英國上訴庭認為沒有證據顯示該案的大比數有罪裁決是由時間壓力所造成。這是本庭對該案的理解。至於吳大律師依賴的那句話（見上文第13段），理應該根據它的全文去解讀；它的重點在於「法官有權期望個別陪審員會就任何個人困難發聲」，亦即和是否有證據有關：

As a matter of general observation, the judge should keep the jury informed about the timetable and possible implications of the procedures, but he was entitled to expect that jurors will raise any personal difficulties they may have.”	“	As a matter of general observation, the judge should keep the jury informed about the timetable and possible implications of the procedures, but he was entitled to expect that jurors will raise any personal difficulties they may have.”
“

Of course, the Court of Appeal stated at the same time that if there seemed to be a likelihood that there was pressure on reaching the verdict, then the position would have been wholly different.
當然，上訴庭同時指出，如果案中有任何跡象顯示裁決可能是出於壓力（even a likelihood），情況便會完全不一樣。

19.	Lincole De Four was a case from Trinidad and Tobago. One of the issues in the case was that the jury, having retired for three hours, were asked about their progress by the judge, and the latter indicated that they would be given an additional 30 minutes. The Privy Council of the United Kingdom was of the view that it was more than likely that the jurors, having heard this, felt under pressure, although it would not have been the intention of the judge. Moreover, in the aforesaid conversation, the foreman referred to some matters which troubled some members of the jury due to insufficient prosecution evidence and certain incredible witnesses, and the judge ought to have but nonetheless did not instantly state that in the event of an irreconcilable disagreement it was the jury’s duty to inform the judge. To conclude, the Privy Council quashed that conviction due to obvious mistakes in that case, including the one referred to in Footnote 8. The support Mr Ng wished to seek from that case (see paragraph 14 above) was only an observation made by the Privy Council on one of the mistakes. That observation has its factual background. Whether or not it is necessary for a judge to raise the same in all cases involving lengthy deliberations on his own initiative and repeatedly cannot be generalised.
Lincoln De Four 是源於千里達及多巴哥的案件。案中的幾個議題之一，是在陪審團退庭三小時之後、法官向他們垂詢進度之時，後者表示會再給陪審團三十分鐘商討裁決的說法。英國樞密院認為，儘管法官沒有這個意圖，但陪審團聽到這句話後相當可能會感到壓力。此外，在上述的對話當中，首席陪審員曾表示有成員因控方證據不足和某某證人不可信而感到困擾，可是法官卻應該但沒有即時指出，陪審團在商討陷入不可挽回的僵局下有責任把情況告知法官。總括而言，樞密院推翻該案定罪，是因為案中有多個明顯錯處，包括註釋8所提到的錯處。吳大律師希望從該案取得的支持（見上文第14段），只是樞密院針對其中一個錯處而作出的觀察，這個觀察有它本身的事實背景。法官是否須要在所有商討時間較長的案件主動及再三地提出同一點，並不能一概而論。

20.	An observation cannot be generalized. That can be seen from the results of Tam Chi Pang and Payne as well. For example in Tam,  although the jury retired at 3:50 pm and reached their verdict at 4:37 am the following day, the then Court of Appeal of Hong Kong did not consider there was any impact on the conviction. The reason being that although it was late at night, the jury had not shown any sign of undue fatigue or unwillingness to continue, and even their verdict (of not guilty on murder but guilty of manslaughter) fully reflected their deliberations. Accordingly, as to the length of retirement, the Court of Appeal’s observations in Tam (see paragraph 15 above) cited by Mr Ng are, in fact, of little use even to that case.
任何觀察皆不能一概而論，可同時見於Tam Chi Pang 和 Payne兩案的結果。例如Tam案，儘管陪審團是在下午3時50分退庭、於翌日凌晨4時37分達致裁決，但當年的香港上訴庭卻不認為會影響該案的定罪。原因是，當時雖然為深夜，但陪審團卻未呈現任何過度的疲態（any sign of undue fatigue），又或表現出不想繼續的意願（unwillingness to continue），更何況他們的裁決（謀殺罪脫罪，誤殺罪成立）可充分顯示其深思熟慮。因此，吳大律師就退庭時間長短而援引上訴庭在Tam案的觀察（見上文第15段），其實連在該案也用不上。

21.	The circumstances of Payne were more extreme than those of Tam. When the jury returned a guilty verdict against Payne and another defendant, they had retired for deliberation for five and a half days. Furthermore, the jury sent a note to the judge on the fifth day indicating they were in deadlock (“we have reached deadlock”). On the morning of the sixth day, it was said that they had a dilemma which all reasonable arguments have failed to resolve, namely a nine to one majority with one jury member undecided (“we are in a dilemma – we have reached nine to one with one jury member decided [sic] – all reasonable arguments have failed to help the member reached (sic) a decision”). Nonetheless, it was only after the judge had received the first note that he gave the jury a majority direction. Following the receipt of the second note, the judge did not deal with it as he was engaged in a trial in another court. In the result, at 1 pm on the sixth day, the jury themselves indicated that they had reached a verdict. After the court was reconvened, they delivered a guilty verdict in the case of Payne by a majority of ten to one.
Payne案的情況比Tam案更為極端。該案陪審團在裁定Payne和另一名被告罪成之時，其實已退庭商討了五天半。此外，陪審團曾在第五天下午向法官傳遞信息，表示他們已陷入僵局（we have reached deadlock），在第六天早上又指自己正處於一個沒有合理辯論能解決的困境，即九對一而另一人則懸而未決（we have a dilemma – we have reached a nine to one position with one jury member undecided – all reasonable arguments have failed to help the member reached a decision）。然而，法官只是在收到上述第一個便條後向陪審團發出過有關大比數裁決的指引，在收到第二個便條後卻因忙於審訊另一案件而沒有處理，結果陪審團在第六天下午一時自行表示已有裁決並於開庭後以十對一的比數裁定Payne有罪。

22.	 Broadly speaking, in that case, the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom was of the view that the facts were complex and the entire trial lasted over seven months. The judge said at the end of his summing-up that there was no pressure of time on the jury. He also said in his summing-up that if he did not respond to the jury’s note about not being able to reach a verdict, it only meant that it was not yet necessary to deal with the problem, and his silence in itself had no significance. Given the background of that case,  the jury must have known that they were to carefully deliberate their verdict; they must have known that their deliberations would be long. The last but most important point was that the Court of Appeal did not consider that the judgment of Lord Lane in Rose should be regarded as an inflexible principle which required the judge in Payne, following receipt of the second note, to re-assemble the court to ascertain whether or not the jury should be discharged. In the view of the Court of Appeal, it depended on the case itself.
粗略而言，對於該案，英國上訴庭的看法是：此案的案情複雜，整個審訊過程長達七個月；法官曾在《導詞》的末端指出，陪審團沒有任何時間上的壓力；法官也在《導詞》指出，假若他不回應陪審團未能達致裁決的信息，這只表示他認為問題尚未到達要處理的階段，他的沉默本身沒有重要性；基於此案的背景，陪審團不可能不知道要用心商議裁決，他們不可能不知道這個商議過程必然是個漫長的過程。最後，亦是最重要的一點，就是上訴庭不認為Lord Lane在Rose案的相關判詞，應被視為Payne案法官在收到第二個便條後必須重新開庭以查考是否應解散陪審團的硬性原則（inflexible principle）。上訴庭認為，這要視乎每件案件本身。

23.	Coming back to the present case, the trial judge, basically following the directions of the Court of Final Appeal in Tam King Hon v HKSAR (2006) 9 HKCFAR 206, explained clearly at the end of his summing-up how the jury were to reach their verdict in the case, including a majority verdict and how to deal with it in the event of disagreement. As far as this case is concerned, the crux of these directions was to raise the matter with the judge when they reached deadlock, and seek further assistance. The trial judge said as follows:
從案例轉到本案，原審法官是基本上按照了終審法院在Tam King Hon v HKSAR (2006) 9 HKCFAR 206的指示，在《導詞》末端清楚解釋了陪審團應如何就案件達致裁決，包括大比數裁決，以及在意見出現分歧時須如何處理。對本案而言，這些指引的關鍵，是在遇上僵局時須向法官發聲、請求進一步的協助。原審法官是這樣說的：

頭先講話以上就係嗰個--就住本案嘅證據嘅總結，已經完咗嗰部分喇，跟住落嚟，你哋每一位都曾經喺最早期嘅時候，作出咗一個宗教或者係非宗教嘅宣誓，表明會根據證據作出真實嘅裁決，呢個係你哋必須履行嘅責任，你哋每一位將你哋嘅個人經驗同埋智慧帶到陪審團席上，應該互相借鑑彼此嘅經驗同埋智慧，收集思廣益之效，你哋除咗發表自己嘅意見之外，亦應該聽取同埋適當咁考慮其他陪審員意見，你哋必須進行討論同埋辯論，喺經過呢啲討論同埋辯論之後，有人可能會被說服，而接納佢之前所冇持有嘅看法，不過你哋喺任何時間都當然必須履行你哋宣誓中嘅誓言，根據證據，作出真實裁決。	“	What was said above is the summing-up of this case and it is over. Now each of you has taken an oath or affirmation to return a true verdict according to the evidence at the earliest stage of the trial. This is a responsibility you must fulfil. Each of you takes into the jury box your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening and giving due consideration to the views of others. There must necessarily be discussion and debate, as a result of which a person may be persuaded to accept a view which he or she did not previously hold. But of course you must at all times stay true to your oath and affirmation and give a true verdict according to the evidence.
「

You should strive to reach a unanimous verdict, that is, a verdict upon which you are all agreed, whether guilty or not guilty. If, however, you are unable to do so, then I am entitled in law to accept a verdict upon which at least five of you are agreed, namely a verdict of six to one, or five to two, guilty or not guilty. A verdict of four to three either way does not constitute a verdict. Should that positon arise, foreman, please inform the court, by way of a note, that it is four to three without saying how you are divided on a verdict. You need not to say how many are agreed or disagreed. You don’t have to say it. All that is needed is “four to three” and it would be understood. When the time comes, I will direct you further.”
你哋應該力求達成一致裁決，即係一個你哋所有人都同意嘅裁決，無論係有罪或者係無罪嘅裁決。如果你哋唔能夠達成一致裁決的話，本席有權依法接納一項至少經你哋其中五個人同意嘅裁決，即係話六對一或者五對二嘅裁決，四對三嘅無論係有罪、冇罪都好嘅裁決，都係無效嘅，如果出現咁嘅情形的話，請首席陪審員用字條嘅形式通知法庭，話出現四對三嘅局面，但係不必說明同意或者係反對某項裁決嘅人數，你唔使話幾多個同意，幾多個不同意，唔需要講，凈係要『四三』，咁就明白㗎喇，到時我就會作出進一步嘅指示。」

24.	After the jury had retired, apart from their requesting to review the applicant’s cautioned video-recorded interview, there was no further note, demand or request for assistance from them. Such position remained the same regardless of whether they were ordered to suspend their discussions and rest at the court at about 8 pm the same day or they were directed by the trial judge to continue discussions at about 9:30 am the following day. The jury eventually reached a verdict at 12:19 pm on the 17th, and nothing happened prior to that. In other words, in this case, unlike in Court, there was no evidence or likelihood of pressure on the jury. As the trial judge, in making an order for the jury to stay overnight, mentioned that they might spend any time they considered necessary in the deliberation of verdict, we can only presuppose that the jury were acting in accordance with what the judge said (note the underlined below):
至於退庭之後，除了在12月16日下午4時10分要求重看申請人的警誡錄影會面之外，陪審團便再沒任何信息、要求或請求協助。這個情況，無論是同日晚上約8時他們被原審法官下令暫停商討即時在法院休息，抑或於翌日早上約9時30分被原審法官指示繼續，都是一樣的。陪審團最終於17日中午12時19分達致裁決，之前也沒有任何波折。換言之，本案完全沒有Court案所指的、陪審團曾感受到壓力的跡象和證據。由於原審法官在下令陪審團留宿時提到，他們可花任何他們認為需要花的時間於商討裁決的事上，本庭只能假設陪審團在按照法官的話行事（留意有下劃線的部分）：

係，咁多位陪審員，咁就喺公義嘅大前提底下，陪審員係可以用你哋需要幾多時間就用幾多時間，嚟到去考慮你哋嘅裁決，同埋係一個好盡責、盡心咁樣去考慮你嘅裁決，而盡責、盡心去考慮裁決就係話，亦都包括，當你哋攰嘅時候，唔應該再繼續，唔應該再繼續，咁所以而家為咗確保你哋唔係喺一個已經攰咗，因為你肉體可能攰，冇乜運動過，但係腦筋始終會攰嘅，你哋由11點37，我計住嘅，11點37分開始已經，除咗食晏嘅時候，你雖然食緊晏冇討論，但係你自己個腦裡面有陣時控制唔到，可能都會諗，所以都係會攰嘅，呢個我覺得會係嘅，咁所以我相信--同埋係過去有案例，亦都有一啲嘅指引、建議就係話，到咗一個晚上八點左右嘅時間，法官就應該指示陪審團要休息，畀腦筋休息，嚟到確保你哋做一個裁決嘅時候，係一個最清晰、最盡責嘅時候做呢個裁決，咁就當然喇，我就會叫你哋去--我哋，我哋叫你休息，咁就你哋八點零鐘，大家成年人，未必咁快瞓得著，咁但係瞓唔著嘅時候，都唔可以討論，唔可以討論，唔可以睇文件，唔可以帶啲文件去睇，唔可以再喺度諗--對唔住，諗呢個好難控制，唔可以在你哋之間去討論，尤其是唔好討論，呢個好緊要嘅，唔好討論，咁跟住然後，呢個明白嘅，即係有陣時幾個鐘頭嘅考慮，以一個盡責嘅陪審團嚟講，未必係足夠嘅時間，未必係足夠嘅時間…..」	“	Right, members of the jury, justice presupposes that you, jurors, may spend as much time as you need in deliberating your verdict – and deliberating your verdict conscientiously. For deliberating your verdict conscientiously, it also includes that when you are tired, you should not continue -- you should not continue. And therefore, now, to ensure that you are not tired, as you may have got tired physically without much exercise -- but you have got tired mentally in any event – you -- from 11:37, that I have been working out, from 11:37 onwards, except when having lunch -- you did not deliberate while having lunch, but for a time you could not help it and you might be thinking about it, so you would get tired. I think that would be the case. And therefore, I believe – and there are authorities in which there is a guide or there are some suggestions that when it comes to about 8 pm, the judge should direct the jury to rest, rest the mind to ensure that you are at your clearest and most conscientious when you return your verdict. Of course, I will ask you – we, we ask you to rest. As adults, you may not necessarily fall asleep that soon shortly after 8 pm. But even when you cannot sleep, you are not allowed to discuss; you are not allowed to discuss; you are not allowed to read documents; you are not allowed to bring with you documents for reading; you are not allowed to think about it – sorry, it is quite difficult to control. You are not allowed to discuss among yourselves, no discussions, in particular, and this is very important, no discussions. Then, this is understandable, that is, a few hours’ consideration, for a conscientious jury, may not necessarily be sufficient; there may not necessarily be sufficient time…”
「

25.	This Court appreciates that Mr Ng in fact argued the contrary that there was pressure on the jury. What he meant was that the indifference of the trial judge caused the jury, who were unable to reach a valid verdict, to give in as a result of suffering over a long period of time, and reluctantly made a decision against the applicant. The problem is that what has been put forward, as a matter of fact, is not consistent with what is shown in the bundle. In our view, the directions given by the trial judge in his summing-up were entirely sufficient to inform the jury that they were to inform the court of any difficulties. The fact that the jury did not do so is proof that they had no such need. Mr Ng asserted that the issue concerned was simple, and if there were no problem, the jury could not possibly have spent about ten hours discussing the verdict. However, this is his speculation. As the defence counsel in the trial, he never made submissions on this point to the judge while the verdict was pending. In the experience of the three members of this Court, there is simply no concrete yardstick on the length of retirement of a jury. Whilst a discussion of about ten hours in this case, in our view, is quite long on the face of it, it is not sufficient to raise doubt in view of the situation as a whole.
本庭明白，吳大律師指陪審團有壓力，其實是一個逆向式的爭辯。他的意思是，原審法官不聞不問，令本來無法達致有效裁決的陪審團，在長時間的煎熬下放棄原則，勉強地作出了一個不利申請人的決定。問題是，這個說法，實在和卷宗上所顯示的情況不符。本庭認為，原審法官在《導詞》中發出的指引，完全足以令陪審團知道須於出現困難時向法庭求助。陪審團沒有這樣做，就是他們沒有這個需要的證明。吳大律師力稱，本案涉及的議題簡單，如無問題的話陪審團不可能花上約十小時來商討裁決，但這實屬他個人的臆測。作為原審時的辯方大律師，他從未在等候裁決期間就這一點向法官陳詞。綜合本庭三位法官的經驗，陪審團退庭時間的長短，根本沒有明確的準則可言。本庭認為，在本案，約十小時的商討表面上是有點長，但根據整體情況看來卻不足以令人生疑。

The applicant’s ground of appeal was not established. We dismissed his application.
申請人的上訴理由不成立，本庭駁回他的申請。

由法律援助署委派韓俞律師行轉聘吳政煌大律師代表	Alex Ng, instructed by C O Yu & Co, Solicitors, assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the applicant
申請人：

由律政司高級檢控官周天行先生代表	Anthony Chau, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
答辯人：