Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Controlled delivery

Legal area

Court

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.
23 Jan 2026

HKSAR v. SHING YIU FUNG

Citation

[2026] HKCA 86
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2025

Leave to appeal was granted because there was a reasonably arguable case that the sentencing judge may have undervalued the guilty plea discount (potentially meriting 25%), may have given an insufficient discount for assistance (4% possibly too low), and the notional starting point was arguable; accordingly leave and an appeal aid certificate were appropriate to permit full appellate consideration.
3 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. CHOW KING KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 607
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC41/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge's summing‑up was fair and balanced, the contested post‑recorded and cautioned statements were properly admissible, the surveillance and controlled delivery evidence together with the admissions and physical links were sufficient to support the convictions, and the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable.
14 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. LAU KA YAN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 280
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC64/2023

The court held that the judge’s use of the term ‘sure’ satisfied the required standard direction and that a Liberato direction is only required where there is a real risk of confusion between assessment of conflicting evidence and the ultimate issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Given the existence of a mixed recorded interview, Grounds 2 and 3 (failure to give an adequate Liberato/explanatory direction and failure properly to explain the handout) were reasonably arguable when reformulated; Grounds 1 and 4 were not reasonably arguable. Leave to appeal was therefore granted limited to the…
10 Jan 2025

HKSAR v. FANG GENCHENG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/2023

The applicant abandoned his appeal against conviction; the Court held the guilty plea was unequivocal and voluntary and there were no grounds to reverse it; the sentencing judge applied appropriate guidelines (starting point 28 years) and permissibly reduced the guilty‑plea discount to 25% because of the unsuccessful reversal application, resulting in a 21‑year term which was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
19 Nov 2024

HKSAR v. EBHONUN AKONJIE ALEX

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1074
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC163/2022

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant gave no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay and the grounds advanced were not substantial or plainly arguable; the sentencing judge correctly applied sentencing tariffs, the totality principle, and appropriate enhancements and discounts, so the sentence was not excessive.
25 Oct 2024

HKSAR v. MICHALAKOPOULOS THEODOROS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 996
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2021

The jury were properly directed that the central issue was knowledge and that inconsistencies about the appellant's finances were one of many circumstantial matters; a full lies direction was not required and the conviction was safe. Sentencing required allowance for exceptional mitigation (grooming, vulnerability and substantial cooperation in a prolonged controlled delivery) resulting in reduction of the notional starting point to produce a final term of 22 years' imprisonment.
13 Jun 2024

HKSAR v. LAM CHEUK NGAI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA279/2023

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the magistrate's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and that the circumstantial evidence — the appellant being the named recipient, the deceptive label, the individual sender, the appellant's acknowledgement of receipt and the high street value of the drugs — established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the parcel contained drugs.
16 May 2024

HKSAR v. NKRUMA MARINA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 470
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2022

Leave to appeal against conviction refused because prosecutorial remarks did not necessitate a lies direction, there was no breach of the Browne v Dunn principle, the judge's evidence comments were permissible common‑sense observations, PW4's testimony was admissible as recitation of the accused's explanations, and the jury (having been properly directed) could legitimately draw an irresistible inference of knowledge from the weight of circumstantial evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the discount for the applicant's assistance in th…
14 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. LAU FUN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 254
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC226/2022

Leave to appeal against conviction is granted on Grounds 1–3 because it is reasonably arguable that earlier WhatsApp/voice messages (21 and 24 November) may have been inadmissible or required limiting directions to prevent impermissible propensity reasoning; Grounds 4–6 are not reasonably arguable and leave on them is refused. A transcript of mitigation and sentence is ordered and limited Legal Aid is granted to advise on a possible out of time sentence appeal.