A HAND-WRITTEN record of a wounding trial was not so deficient as to mean the two defendants could not have a fair appeal, the Court of Appeal held yesterday. Chan Kwok-tung and Chan Sui-muk were convicted of six counts of wounding another man with intent in July 1990 at Wah Fu Chinese Emporium Restaurant and are serving five-year sentences. Their counsel, Mr Kevin Egan, on appeal submitted as one ground that District Court Judge Kilgour had failed to keep a proper record of the evidence, so they could not get a proper appeal as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Mr Egan questioned the judge's recording of witnesses' evidence, relying on some examples of specific deficiencies as noted by the defendants' solicitors and four further minor deficiencies, when invited by the Court of Appeal to go further. He submitted that the judge's record contravened Article 11(4) of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to an appeal, and said all district judges should have a shorthand note-taker, to record question and answers of cross-examination. In this case, Mr Justice Silke said, the judge only recorded answers, which without the preceding question were obscure and ambiguous. ''We fully sympathise with the contention that in this electronic and technological age, the provision of some form of mechanical recording in the District Court is fully warranted,'' said Mr Justice Silke. But as the Criminal Procedure Ordinance provides that a record may be by shorthand note, mechanical means, or other such record as the judge directs, the court held there was no obligation in law for a shorthand note-taker to record the evidence in criminal trials in the District Court. In this case, the court held that there were minor deficiencies in the way cross-examination was recorded, but any ambiguity had been explained away by the trial judge. Rejecting the appeal, the court held that the appellants had not been disadvantaged.