34. In the present matter, the primary prosecution case was that the dealings between the appellant and Mr Wong in respect of the renovations to the Shenzhen property were corrupt, the form of corruption being that alleged in Count 1, and that they were deliberately concealed in order to hide that corruption. If that case had been accepted, there would have been a conviction on Count 1, and the elements of wilfulness and seriousness in respect of Count 2 would have presented little difficulty. That case, however, was not accepted by some members of the jury. If the dealings concerning the renovations were not corrupt, then issues as to the wilfulness and seriousness of their non-disclosure would become prominent. The central question in this appeal is whether the jurors who were not prepared to convict on Count 1, but who convicted on Count 2, were given appropriate guidance on how they were to approach those issues.
假若當初是第一及第二項控罪都定罪, 而曾蔭權在上訴庭上訴失敗後繼續申請保釋而沒有服完餘下刑期, 就算終審法院判上訴得直, 也會命令重審。
我最不明白的是, 曾蔭權沒有作供, 控辯雙方同意呈遞了他在Beautiful Sunday (美麗星期天?)節目自圓其說的解釋, 這種exculpatory statement, 在嚴重罪行裏可依賴作為事實的價值理應甚低, 即是幾乎可以說沒有辯方證據可以被接納來考慮, 連終院也不相信他不披露並非大意所致:
曾生清白嗎? 他的一眾cronies立即跳出來慶祝, 立即恭賀, 這些人未免給我一丘之貉的感覺。香港的核心價值: 貪貪貪。清白清白清白, 喊完三聲變事實。