YU KWEI TIM v. HKSAR
- Citation
- YU KWEI TIM v. HKSAR
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 10 October 2007
- 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
- Case number
- FAMC37/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 10 October 2007
- 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
- Case number
- FAMC37/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
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
- 01
Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
- 02
Whether the trial judge's direction that 4:3 is a verdict the court cannot accept caused substantial and grave injustice
- 03
Whether directing jurors to continue deliberating until they reach a specified majority (eg 5:2) is impermissible pressure
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
Legal principles
- 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
- 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
- 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.
Court of Final Appeal
Judgment· 10 October 2007
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
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.