Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Final Appeal

YU KWEI TIM v. HKSAR

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the direction that 4:3 was unacceptable did not, in the court's view and consistent with Chan Kar Leung and Pun Luen Pan, amount to the substantial and grave injustice required to warrant granting leave; by contrast, a direction compelling jurors to continue until a specified majority would be more problematic but was not present here.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal out of time refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal out of time refused

02

Material facts

Parties

YU KWEI TIM

Applicant Counsel: Mr Albert Luk (instructed by Messrs To, Lam & Co. and assigned by the Legal Aid Department)

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Respondent Counsel: Miss Mary Sin (Department of Justice)

Amounts and remedies

  • Conviction Majority for Verdict: 5
  • Jury Majority Opposed: 2
  • Minority Votes Referenced: 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Proceedings (criminal) Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time From CACC No. 87 of 2004 / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued that the trial judge's direction to the jury that 4:3 is a verdict the court cannot accept produced substantial and grave injustice and sought leave to appeal out of time to challenge the conviction.
Respondent
Respondent contended leave should be refused; relied on Chan Kar Leung and Pun Luen Pan distinctions and submitted that the impugned direction did not create a real danger of indefinite or coercive deliberation sufficient to establish substantial and grave injustice.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Final Appeal (this determination)

    Leave to appeal out of time is discretionary and requires demonstration of substantial and grave injustice to justify intervention

  2. 02

    Chan Kar Leung v. HKSAR, FACC Nos. 5 & 6 of 2006, 6 November 2006

    A direction that a particular narrow majority is unacceptable does not automatically amount to impermissible pressure on jurors; context and wording matter

  3. 03

    Pun Luen Pan v. HKSAR, FAMC No. 24 of 2007, 19 September 2007

    Telling jurors they must continue deliberating until they reach a specified majority (eg at least 5:2) goes further and risks improper pressure

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the direction that 4:3 was unacceptable did not, in the court's view and consistent with Chan Kar Leung and Pun Luen Pan, amount to the substantial and grave injustice required to warrant granting leave; by contrast, a direction compelling jurors to continue until a specified majority would be more problematic but was not present here.

Obiter and limits

  • There was no real danger of the jury getting the impression that they had to go on deliberating indefinitely.
  • Telling the jury that they must continue deliberating until they reach a verdict of at least 5:2 plainly goes further than merely telling them that anything less than 5:2 does not constitute an acceptable verdict.
  • Chan Kar Leung succeeded on other grounds but not on the complaint about the direction to the jury.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal out of time refused

  • Leave to appeal out of time refused

Source and reliance status

Court of Final Appeal · 10 October 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· 10 October 2007

YU KWEI TIM v. HKSAR

bjbj FAMC No. 37 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 37 OF 2007 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 87 OF 2004) _____ Between:

YU KWEI TIM Applicant - and -

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent _____ Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing : 10 October 2007 Date of Determination : 10 October 2007

D E T E R M I N A T I O N Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : This applicant was convicted in the High Court by a majority of 5:2 of trafficking in a dangerous drug. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. He now seeks leave to appeal out of time in order to argue before the Court of Final Appeal that substantial and grave injustice to him was occasioned by the trial judge s direction to the jury that 4:3 is a verdict that the court cannot accept . In Chan Kar Leung v. HKSAR, FACC Nos. 5 & 6 of 2006, 6 November 2006, the Court was concerned with a direction, to a jury of nine, that anything less than 7 2 would not be acceptable . That appeal succeeded on other grounds, but not on the complaint against that direction. The Court said (in para.7) that there was no real danger of the jury getting the impression that they had to go on deliberating indefinitely. In Pun Luen Pan v. HKSAR, FAMC No. 24 of 2007, 19 September 2007, the Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal in order for that applicant to argue before the Court of Final Appeal that substantial and grave injustice to him had been occasioned by a direction to the jury that if they were locked in at four three then [they] must continue [their] discussion until [they] reach at least five two . Telling the jury that they must continue deliberating until they reach a verdict of at least 5:2 plainly goes further than merely

telling them that anything less than 5:2 does not constitute an acceptable verdict. Consistently with the judgment in Chan Kar Leung and the determination in Pun Lun Pan, leave to appeal is refused in the present case. (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (RAV Ribeiro) Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Mr Albert Luk (instructed by Messrs To, Lam & Co. and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant Miss Mary Sin (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.

FAMC No. 37 of 2007 (Yu Kwei Tim)

Case cited

Chan Kar Leung v. HKSAR, FACC Nos. 5 & 6 of 2006, 6 November 2006

Case cited

Pun Luen Pan v. HKSAR, FAMC No. 24 of 2007, 19 September 2007

Case cited

CACC No. 87 of 2004 (Court of Appeal affirmation referenced)

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.