Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretion to order retrial

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴葉澤深

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA122/2023

The court refused to issue the certificate because the applicant's proposed question did not involve a point of law of great and general importance but was an attempt to relitigate the appellate discretionary decision whether to order retrial and to avoid application of established legal principles; prospective limitation of the judgment was not justified and the matter is one of discretionary fairness and fact-specific application, not certifiable law.
29 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG (梁耀強)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 12
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC6/2021

Leave to appeal was granted on the substantial and grave injustice basis because it was reasonably arguable that the majority of the Court of Appeal miscarried in ordering a third retrial for murder; arguments based on the alleged diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder were excluded from the leave grant.
22 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/2013

The application for certification was refused because the questions raised did not disclose points of law of great and general importance but instead raised issues of substantial and grave injustice and fact-specific application of settled retrial principles; the Court had fully considered the issues during a comprehensive seven-day hearing and therefore certification was not justified.
13 May 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN CHE YUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHE YUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC360/2012

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence because the trial judge erred in failing to edit prejudicial incriminating remarks in D2's notebook entry and failed to give adequate jury directions regarding those remarks and D2's out-of-court statements; combined with the prior exclusion of the appellant's own admissions, these errors rendered the conviction unsafe. The court declined to order a retrial after balancing public interest against the appellant's youth and the weakness of the remaining prosecution case.
23 Jul 1996

R. v. MA SIU HONG

Citation

R. v. MA SIU HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA605/1996

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate placed undue reliance on witness demeanour without adequately addressing the collaboration between police witnesses and material discrepancies in their accounts, producing a lurking doubt as to safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction was quashed and sentence set aside, and no retrial was ordered as it was not in the interests of justice.
3 Apr 1984

WONG SIU LUNG (D.1) AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG SIU LUNG (D.1) AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1558/1983

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge's unfounded, speculative comments about the genuineness of a defence document and misleading references to the appellant's alleged handling of the drug packet were prejudicial and rendered the trial unfair; given the importance of the counterfoil to the defence and the high prospect of acquittal at retrial, the court refused to order a retrial.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 葉澤深

HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG (梁耀強)

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI

HKSAR v. CHAN CHE YUNG

R. v. MA SIU HONG

WONG SIU LUNG (D.1) AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴葉澤深