CHAN KA MAN v. HKSAR
- Citation
- CHAN KA MAN v. HKSAR
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 12 December 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal by the Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC59/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 12 December 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal by the Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC59/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the applicant was entitled to have the jury made aware and properly directed that he had been acquitted on five counts or not convicted in relation to those incidents, and that the failure to do so may have caused substantial and grave injustice; the grant of leave is confined to that basis only.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the limited basis that the jury should have been informed and properly directed about prior acquittals or non‑convictions for five incidents
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified basis only
02
Material facts
Parties
CHAN KA MAN
Applicant Counsel: Mr Phillip Ross (instructed by Messrs Lo, Wong & Tsui and assigned by the Legal Aid Department)HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Respondent Counsel: Mr Simon Tam (Department of Justice)Amounts and remedies
- Convictions: 4
- Acquittals: 5
- Incidents: 9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal by the Court of Final Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether prior acquittals are admissible to attack the complainant's veracity
- 02
Whether the jury should have been informed and properly directed that the applicant had been acquitted on five counts or not convicted in relation to those incidents
- 03
Whether the failure to so inform and direct the jury caused substantial and grave injustice warranting leave to appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant argued that the jury should have been made aware and properly directed that he had been acquitted on five counts or at least not convicted in relation to those five incidents to dispel any notion that he had been convicted, and that the complainant's eventual complaint involving nine incidents showed delay affecting her veracity; he contended that the omission caused substantial and grave injustice.
- Respondent
- Respondent (and applicant's counsel accepting) conceded that the acquittals were not admissible to suggest the complainant had been disbelieved (citing HKSAR v Wong Sau Ming) and resisted relief on the basis that no substantial and grave injustice was shown beyond that inadmissibility point.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
HKSAR v Wong Sau Ming (2003) 6 HKCFAR 135
Prior acquittals are not admissible to suggest a complainant was disbelieved
- 02
Common law principle on jury directions and fairness of trial
Trial judge has duty to direct the jury on relevant facts including prior trial outcomes where omission may give rise to unfair inference
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the applicant was entitled to have the jury made aware and properly directed that he had been acquitted on five counts or not convicted in relation to those incidents, and that the failure to do so may have caused substantial and grave injustice; the grant of leave is confined to that basis only.
Obiter and limits
- Counsel for the applicant rightly accepted that the acquittals were not admissible to attack veracity under HKSAR v Wong Sau Ming
- The court emphasised that leave was granted on the limited basis of jury awareness/direction regarding prior acquittals only
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the limited basis that the jury should have been informed and properly directed about prior acquittals or non‑convictions for five incidents
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified basis only
Source and reliance status
Court of Final Appeal · 12 December 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Final Appeal
Judgment· 12 December 2007
bjbj FAMC No. 59 of 2007
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 59 OF 2007 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 254 OF 2005) _____ Between:
CHAN KA MAN Applicant - and -
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent _____ Appeal Committee : Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ Date of Hearing : 12 December 2007 Date of Determination : 12 December 2007
D E T E R M I N A T I O N Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : At his first trial the applicant was convicted on four counts but acquitted on five counts based on five of the nine incidents the subject-matter of a complaint by the complainant. At his retrial on four counts the applicant brought out the fact that when the complainant eventually complained to the police, her complaint was ultimately of nine incidents. That was done with a view to showing the extent of the delay before she made any complaint to the police and using such delay to attack her veracity. It could not be established that any of the acquittals involved any finding that the complainant had been disbelieved. It is therefore rightly accepted by counsel for the applicant that, on the authority of HKSAR v. Wong Sau Ming (2003) 6 HKCFAR 135, none of the acquittals was admissible for the purpose of attacking the complainant s veracity by suggesting that it was based on her having been disbelieved. But it is reasonably arguable that the applicant was entitled to have the jury made aware, and properly directed on, the fact that he had been acquitted on the counts based on the five incidents in question or at least that he had not been convicted of any offence in relation to any of those five incidents, the purpose being to protect him by dispelling any notion in the mind of the jury that he may have been so convicted. And it
is reasonably arguable that he has suffered substantial and grave injustice as result of the jury not having been so made aware and directed. He is granted leave to appeal on that basis and, we emphasise, that basis only. (Andrew Li) (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) Chief Justice Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Mr Phillip Ross (instructed by Messrs Lo, Wong & Tsui and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant Mr Simon Tam (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent
PAGE -
PAGE - &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.