Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Final Appeal

CHAN KA MAN v. HKSAR

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

  1. 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

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

  1. 01

    HKSAR v Wong Sau Ming (2003) 6 HKCFAR 135

    Prior acquittals are not admissible to suggest a complainant was disbelieved

  2. 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.

Source document

Court of Final Appeal

Judgment· 12 December 2007

CHAN KA MAN v. HKSAR

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

HKSAR v Wong Sau Ming (2003) 6 HKCFAR 135

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.