Unlike Justice Pang of the High Court, Justice Tang of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has made some effort in drafting his reasons as to why he dismissed Long Hair’s bail application pending appeal. Although the issue covered is pretty much the same, the CFA’s judgment comes to a 1400 words in total, whereas Justice Pang’s judgment comes to a mere 231 words.
The CFA’s full judgment can be read here. In a nutshell, on the issue of ‘joint enterprise’ (discussed here the other day), the CFA has held that even if Long Hair had a case for arguing that the appeals judge was wrong in convicting him on a different basis than the trial judge, this would still leave two other charges, namely for criminal damage. Further, the CFA did not see its role as revisiting the credibility of witnesses in respect of the criminal damage charges and those could therefore not be appealed. In turn, the CFA held that even if Long Hair was successful on appealing against the conviction that arose from the ‘joint enterprise’ issue, he would still have to serve his sentence for the criminal damage charge. Thus, Long Hair was refused bail.
While one can agree or disagree with the CFA’s judgment – one important issue in this regard is whether Justice Pang properly considered the credibility of witnesses – at least there is a substantial judgment that one can dissect. As discussed the other day, this is not the case with Justice Pang’s judgment.