Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of indictment

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. MAK WAN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCA 387
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC5/2018

The Court held that the summing-up, read as a whole, fairly directed the jury on all essential elements including the fifth ingredient; a Kevin Brown direction was unnecessary because the judge's directions prevented the risk of inconsistent juror findings; the amendments to the indictment were permissible and reflected evidence from the earlier trial; expert evidence supporting a duty to ensure laboratory quality and sterility testing was adduced and the existence of such a duty was properly a matter for the jury; accordingly leave was refused where required and the appeal dismissed.
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.
21 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. HUI KA LOK, SAM

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3167
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC148/2020

Count Two was severed because its evidence, being post-offence conduct, posed a real risk of prejudice that could lead a jury to infer guilt on the very serious Count One; severance was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to avoid undue complication and lengthening of proceedings.
11 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. TSOI FOR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1670
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC312/2019

Amendment refused because the proposed change would fundamentally reconstruct the prosecution case by converting a charge about drugs found on the premises into a broader conspiracy charge concerning different drugs and a longer period, thereby causing unfairness and injustice to the defendant at retrial.
17 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. MAK WAN LING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC437/2015

Amendment of the indictment was permitted because the proposed particulars accorded with evidence already adduced at the first trial and did not change the prosecution's underlying case or require additional evidence; the amendments were necessary to reflect the case the defendant must meet and would not cause injustice or unfair prejudice under s23 CPO.
8 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴莫廣才

Citation

[2020] HKCA 548
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC337/2019

The Court held the trial judge correctly allowed the charge amendment and did not act unfairly or over‑participate; the applicant's admissions were voluntary and corroborated by extensive documentary and physical evidence (including seized application forms, cards and operational conduct), thereby supporting convictions on counts 1 and 2; and the sentence of 5.5 years was within proper discretion and not manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.
26 Jun 2020

香港特別行政區訴呂浚森及另二人

Citation

[2020] HKCA 516
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/2018

The appeal succeeds in respect of convictions based on the amended charges because the late substitution of 'acting as triad members' materially altered the prosecution's case and prejudiced the defendants given the prior abandonment of key confession evidence; that amendment could not be characterized as merely technical and therefore convictions under charges (1) and (3) must be quashed. Separately, the trial judge's finding that the three appellants (aged about 13-14) had sufficient maturity and understanding to rebut doli incapax on the remaining charges was upheld based on their age, sch…
15 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. CHAU YUI MING (周銳銘)

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 39
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC2/2019

A judge must direct a jury on obvious alternative verdicts supported by the evidence, but is not obliged to explore speculative alternatives or to order splitting of an indictment where those alternatives do not arise from the way the case was presented; on these facts the defence ran an all‑or‑nothing case, there was no obvious evidential basis to split the count or treat ketamine as mere possession, the judge gave a favourable direction on the single‑count basis, and therefore there was no duty to amend the indictment and no substantial and grave injustice — appeal dismissed.
14 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. LEUNG HO MAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC4/2019

The court refused the prosecution's immediate application to put the indictment again and declined to accept an alternative manslaughter plea at that stage because material admissibility and evidential lacunae (identification, CCTV, medical evidence and causation) needed resolution first; the defence is not precluded from challenging evidence despite a prior refused plea offer and a Newton hearing or further evidential testing may be required before any plea is accepted for sentencing purposes.
7 Mar 2019

香港特別行政區訴錢勇

Citation

[2019] HKCA 239
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC45/2018

The trial judge properly allowed the amendment and correctly directed the jury that whether the defendant acted personally or by instructing another was immaterial to the elements of theft; given the defendant's exclusive control of online banking credentials and related evidence, the jury was entitled to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant dishonestly appropriated the funds either personally or through a third party, and the convictions and concurrent sentences are therefore safe.