Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder and severance

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴李永輝

Citation

[2024] HKDC 652
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC584/2023

The court granted consolidation of DCCC582, DCCC584 and DCCC585 because those indictments had sufficient factual and evidential nexus (including identical charges and common involvement of 卡樂工程有限公司 and substantial overlap of prosecution witnesses), and consolidation would not cause unfair prejudice to the defendants; DCCC583 was ordered to be tried separately because its sole conspiracy charge lacked sufficient connection to the other three indictments and consolidation would cause unacceptable prejudice and disproportionate delay to the defendants in that indictment.
16 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. CHEN JINGWEI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC559/2019

The court held that joinder was proper because the two charges in DCCC846 and Charges 1,3-10 in DCCC559 exhibited sufficient factual nexus and legal similarity (common middleman D1, repeating modus operandi, corroborative identification, recruitment and document procurement patterns, payments and overlapping time frame) to constitute a series of offences under Rule 7; no unfairness or prejudice to the accused was identified, so consolidation was ordered.
7 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court held that the proposed second re-amendments were not amendments of substance, caused no prejudice or injustice to the defendants, corrected the indictment to reflect evidence and statutory language, and that joinder of the conspiracy and substantive possession counts was justified; accordingly the second re-amendments were granted.
14 May 1993

R. v. WONG KWAI-FUN

Citation

R. v. WONG KWAI-FUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC390/1991

The Court held that (1) a conviction under s.90(1) for assisting offenders does not preclude a separate conviction under s.89 for aiding and abetting the substantive offence because s.89 liability does not mean the aider is treated as the perpetrator for s.90(1) purposes; (2) the attempt to pervert the course of justice could properly be joined to the counselling/procuring counts because the counts shared a common factual origin and the evidence was relevant; (3) the trial judge's directions, including accomplice warnings and limitations on use of the letters, were adequate and a Broadhurst d…
30 May 1991

THE QUEEN v. SZE SING MING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SZE SING MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC580/1989

The Court held the trial judge did not err: joinder of passport counts with fraud counts was lawful because they arose from the same facts; a full Ghosh direction was unnecessary because no evidence raised a genuine issue that defendants subjectively believed their conduct honest; McGreevy permits directing the jury only to the standard of proof when case is circumstantial; the summing-up was adequate and convictions stand. Applications for leave to appeal were refused.
27 Apr 1990

THE QUEEN v. YAU SHING POR AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YAU SHING POR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC17/1989

Counts 1 and 2 were quashed because there was no direct admissible evidence proving an attempted robbery or that a firearm was possessed in the course of that robbery; a no‑case submission would have succeeded. Count 6 (possession of a firearm on 15 April 1988) was supported by evidence and upheld. The joinder irregularity did not by itself require quashing because defence counsel had consented and the judge properly directed the jury to treat incidents separately.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 李永輝

HKSAR v. CHEN JINGWEI AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

R. v. WONG KWAI-FUN

THE QUEEN v. SZE SING MING AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. YAU SHING POR AND ANOTHER

香港特別行政區訴李永輝