HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS

Court admitted opinion evidence from the listed medical and scientific experts despite lack of hands-on human CIK administration where their study and disciplinary expertise (haematology, immunology, microbiology, stem cell/transplantation) rendered their opinions of assistance; GMP Guidelines (1995) are relevant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: CHOW Heung-wing, Stephen; 2nd Defendant: CHAN Kwun-chung; 3rd Defendant: MAK Wan-ling
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 June 2017
Case Number
HCCC437/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Gross Negligence Manslaughter / Admissibility Hearing (voir Dire) and Ruling on Evidentiary Issues
Outcome
Partial admission and partial exclusion of evidence as to experts and GMP; joint criminal enterprise not established
Legal Topics
Gross Negligence Manslaughter, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Good Manufacturing Practice (gmp) Relevance, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Evidence Medical Law Regulatory Compliance Gross Negligence Manslaughter Expert Evidence Admissibility Good Manufacturing Practice (gmp) Relevance Joint Criminal Enterprise +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHOW Heung-wing, Stephen

1st Defendant

CHAN Kwun-chung

2nd Defendant

MAK Wan-ling

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Gross Negligence Manslaughter / Admissibility Hearing (voir Dire) and Ruling on Evidentiary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed expert witnesses are qualified to give opinion evidence on CIK without hands-on experience
  2. 2 Whether GMP Guidelines are relevant and admissible as a standard of care or requirement and whether experts may opine on application of PPO
  3. 3 Whether the facts amount to a joint criminal enterprise so that acts/declarations of one defendant are admissible against others

Ratio Decidendi

Court admitted opinion evidence from the listed medical and scientific experts despite lack of hands-on human CIK administration where their study and disciplinary expertise (haematology, immunology, microbiology, stem cell/transplantation) rendered their opinions of assistance; GMP Guidelines (1995) are relevant and admissible as a reference for the reasonable standard of preparation and manipulation of cells at the material time but experts may not give opinion on legal definitions under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (PPO); Mr William Chui may not opine on legal application of PPO and his later statement interpreting PPO was excluded; the facts do not establish a joint criminal...

Court Disposition

Partial admission and partial exclusion of evidence as to experts and GMP; joint criminal enterprise not established

Orders

  • Expert evidence from PW69 (Prof Yuen), PW72 (Dr Raymond Liang), PW74 (Prof Ng), PW75 (Mr William Chui) subject to limitations, PW77 (Dr Li Chikong), PW78 (Dr Albert Lie), and PW79 (Prof Godfrey Chan) admitted as qualified to opine on CIK where within their expertise
  • Evidence of GMP Guidelines (1995) admissible as a reference standard for safety in preparation/manipulation of cells but experts are prohibited from giving legal opinions on the definitions or application of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance