Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Burden and standard of proof

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

SADARIA BT MAKARODA MANURANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2583
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1052/2022

Extension of time refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the approximately one‑month delay and the proposed grounds were no more than bare assertions; the Board's decision had been made after proper consideration of evidence and COI, applied the correct legal tests, and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success.
18 May 2026

FITRI ASDINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL746/2021

The leave application was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and weighed the evidence, made fact findings open on the evidence (including that injuries were not of sufficient severity, the matter was a family dispute, state protection was available and internal relocation feasible), and the Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
14 May 2026

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI WAI

Citation

[2026] HKCA 967
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC162/2022

Read as a whole the judge's summing‑up correctly conveyed the burden and standard of proof and sufficiently directed the jury that they must acquit if the defence account 'is or may be correct'; the judge's statements that denied suggestions were 'no evidence' were proper in context and did not usurp the jury's role; the sentence was adjusted on appeal to reflect revised sentencing guidelines, reducing it to 23 years' imprisonment.
13 May 2026

JAVED ZUBAIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1025/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success, and the Board's decision, upon anxious scrutiny, displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
6 May 2026

MOHAMMAD MORSHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 813
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV852/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal to grant leave; the Court will not interfere where the Board's assessments fall within its primary fact‑finding remit and no viable grounds to reverse the refusal were advanced.
6 May 2026

OLPINDO JANICE GALANO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1303/2024

The leave application was dismissed and the applicant's attempt to withdraw refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and its factual assessment that the claim was a domestic dispute without real risk of proscribed harm was justified.
6 May 2026

HKSAR v. LAU KA YAN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 820
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC64/2023

The Court held that no Liberato direction was required because the defence did not present conflicting testimonial accounts that risked confusing the jury; the judge's directions and the 'Route to Verdict' handout, which instructed the jury to acquit unless they were 'sure' on each factual question, adequately explained the onus and standard of proof and were sufficient to cover the appellant's mixed statement; accordingly the conviction for attempted trafficking was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
6 May 2026

BABUL MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2626
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1003/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's Decision demonstrably contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its assessment of facts, COI, state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.
6 May 2026

JASHIM HOWLADER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1046/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground; the Board's factual findings and COI assessment were within its primary remit and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the minor misdescription of the adjudicator's capacity did not nullify the Board's valid decision.
31 Mar 2026

HKSAR v. LIMBU, SANDHYA

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1848
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA118/2025

On rehearing the judge found that the totality of the uncontested evidence — location at rear of operating restaurant, presence of stacked used dishes with leftover food, washing basin with foam, the appellant wearing gloves and dirty gumboots, and absence of any explanation — permitted only the irresistible inference that the appellant was performing dishwashing work under an employment contrary to her approved condition of stay and that the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.