Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Flight direction

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. AMARJIT

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1252
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2019

Where flight evidence is ancillary to a central, sharply contested factual issue (here whether the appellant alighted holding two bags visibly containing drugs) and the jury received an adequate Liberato direction such that a reasonable doubt on that issue would have led to acquittal, the omission to give a full flight direction was not a material irregularity; if material, the proviso would apply because the verdict would inevitably have been the same.
11 Feb 2022

HKSAR v. POSSO VERGARA CRISTHIAN ENRIQUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 49
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC373/2018

The judge's summing‑up was overall fair and comprehensive; omissions (full pre‑trial silence wording, explicit accomplice or flight directions) were not material in the context of the evidence and the way the case was conducted, the proposed fresh evidence was not credible or necessary for justice, and the alleged misstatements about DNA and minor factual slips did not render the conviction unsafe — accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the conviction upheld.
14 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. AMARJIT

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1361
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2019

Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the failure to give a flight direction raised a reasonably arguable point of mixed fact and law, warranting appellate consideration and preparation of the transcript of the applicant's evidence.
10 Jan 2018

HKSAR v. YAN SIN MAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 6
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC367/2015

The judge erred in allowing the jury to infer that the applicant authored the notebook entries and phone photographs and in permitting those records to be used as proof against the applicant of actual drug trafficking when there was insufficient evidence (no fingerprints or handwriting link) to justify that inference; the records could only be used, if at all, as circumstantial evidence of possession of records characteristic of trafficking and with limiting directions; the misdirection created a real danger of wrongful inference and requires quashing the conviction.
8 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. FUNG PAK CHEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG PAK CHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/2006

Given the inconsistency between the applicant's account and the pathological evidence, the lies direction was necessary and was properly and adequately given; a flight direction was unnecessary because the accused admitted the unlawful killing and the only contested issue was intent; the summing up fairly presented the defence; therefore the conviction was not unsafe.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. AMARJIT

HKSAR v. POSSO VERGARA CRISTHIAN ENRIQUE

HKSAR v. AMARJIT

HKSAR v. YAN SIN MAN

HKSAR v. FUNG PAK CHEUNG