Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alternative verdicts

Legal area

Court

30 May 2025

HKSAR v. IQBAL ASIF

Citation

[2025] HKCA 516
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC93/2024

The judge's directions removed the element of non‑consent required for rape, rendering the conviction unsafe; however, because the rape count contained the constituent elements of indecent assault and the jury's verdict necessarily established facts sufficient for indecent assault of a person under 16 (who cannot consent in law for that offence), both statutory conditions of s83A were satisfied and it was proper in all the circumstances to quash the rape conviction and substitute a verdict of indecent assault and impose an appropriate substituted sentence.
11 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI (李長再)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 20
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC16/2023

Leave to appeal was granted only on the point whether statements of an accused to a medical practitioner are hearsay and the effect on admissibility of the expert's opinion; the remainder of the application was dismissed because there was no reasonable argument that the trial judge or Court of Appeal were wrong to conclude there was insufficient evidential basis to require a jury direction on suicide pact and no substantial and grave injustice arose.
20 Apr 2023

HKSAR v. WONG FUNG (王豐)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC10/2023

The court held that no duty arose to direct the jury on unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter because the cautioned statement, when read in its full factual and evidential context (surrender, solicitor evidence, arraignment and consistent defence of provocation), supported only the provocation defence and did not present an obvious alternative on the evidence; therefore failure to direct did not amount to substantial and grave injustice.
31 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. WONG FUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1163
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC266/2018

The judge's directions were correct and lawful because the defence consistently ran the case solely on provocation such that murderous intent was not a live issue at trial and there was no sufficient evidential foundation to leave an alternative verdict of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter to the jury; accordingly the application for leave to appeal and the appeal are dismissed.
26 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. ROJAS MONTOYA JUAN PABLO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC78/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the evidence linked him to the flat and drugs, the judge's directions on possession and joint possession were adequate, counsel's conduct was a competent tactical choice not flagrant incompetence, there was no sufficient basis to leave an alternative s37 verdict, prior convictions negated any entitlement to a good character direction, and alleged challenges to CCTV or admissions were not supported by instruction or evidence.
3 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. LIU SUN KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 4
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC348/2018

The judge did not err in refusing to direct the jury on voluntary intoxication or self-defence because the applicant’s trial case was run on provocation/unlawful act manslaughter, there was no evidential basis raised at trial for intoxication or self-defence that met the low but real threshold for leaving alternative verdicts, and allowing those directions would have inappropriately recharacterised the defence case.
23 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. ASIF AHFAQ MEHMOOD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC138/2020

The court refused the defence application: a plea to an offence not on the indictment (s19 Wounding) which the prosecution declined cannot be placed before the jury at arraignment; such a tendered but unaccepted plea is a nullity and not admissible to be tried or relied upon by the jury; the court will not direct the prosecution to amend the indictment under s23 CPO at this stage and s65C cannot be used to admit the fact of an unaccepted plea as part of the prosecution case; leave to apply again is preserved if evidence later supports such an application.
1 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. LAI KAM FUNG (賴錦鋒)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC8/2021

Leave to appeal was dismissed because on the evidence and the way the defence was run (an outright denial of possession and no suggestion of self-consumption) simple possession was not an obvious or viable alternative; the judge did not err in omitting a direction on that alternative and the applicant failed to show a departure from accepted norms amounting to substantial and grave injustice.
25 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. WONG CHUN YAU

Citation

[2021] HKCA 120
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC118/2019

The Court held there was no miscarriage of justice: the prosecution limited its case to whether the appellant himself possessed the drugs (sole, joint or successive) for trafficking; the defence introduced evidence of Mok's guilty plea and accepted the manner in which the case was to be run; the judge gave clear directions on the elements (possession, knowledge, purpose) and on joint/successive possession and did not need to treat joint enterprise as pleaded; no prejudice arose and no obvious alternative verdict of simple possession arose on the way the defence ran the case, therefore appeal…
27 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. LAM KAI MAN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 624
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/2019

A defendant seeking the full one‑third plea discount for a plea to a lesser or alternative offence must make a clear, unequivocal and preferably formal plea on the court record (or, if reliance is placed on written offers, demonstrate good reason why the plea was not formally entered and that the position was adhered to thereafter); where the defendant did not do so and continued to dispute issues such as consent and credibility, full discount is not automatic. Applying these principles, the proper discount in this case was 25% and the appropriate enhanced notional sentence after trial would…