10 Sept 2021
香港特別行政區 訴 楊博文
- Citation
- [2021] HKCFI 2676
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA283/2020
上訴被駁回：法庭裁定裁判官在處理證供及索取精神科報告時之言論並不顯示在審訊階段存在偏見；其在審訊期間針對警員證供的詢問屬合理澄清，並無阻礙辯方或被告自我辯護；裁判官對拒納上訴人證供的理由充足且合邏輯，故上訴不能推翻定罪。
Hong Kong Case Law
Judicial intervention and bias
5 Jun 2014
HKSAR v. FOK KA CHING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. FOK KA CHING
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC188/2013
The Court held that the trial judge fairly and reasonably interpreted the defendant's VRIs, properly directed the jury on the significance of the DNA evidence as independent corroboration inconsistent with the defendant's account, and correctly exercised managerial interventions in cross-examination; the convictions were not unsafe or unsatisfactory and the leave application was dismissed.
16 Apr 2008
HKSAR v. CRUZ PABLO JR. IGNACIO
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CRUZ PABLO JR. IGNACIO
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA977/2007
Magistrate's interventions did not amount to bias and were permissible; the credibility findings for PW1 and PW2 were properly reached despite minor discrepancies; the physical evidence and agreed fee corroborated their account; attempting to examine a decoy while donning mask/glove and agreeing a fee constituted holding oneself out as practising dentistry within s.2(2) or otherwise amounted to practising dentistry; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Feb 2008
HKSAR v. SIN WING YI, WINNIE
- Citation
- HKSAR v. SIN WING YI, WINNIE
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC471/2004
Viewed in the context of the whole trial the judge's interventions were directed at remedying prosecutorial disorganisation and securing efficient, intelligible presentation of evidence; they did not amount to unfairness, bias or taking over the prosecution case, and therefore the convictions and sentence were safe and the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.
13 Mar 1997
R. v. AU YEUNG KIN KWOK
- Citation
- R. v. AU YEUNG KIN KWOK
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC215/1996
The Court held the written post‑recorded statement was properly admitted as free and voluntary, the identification and victim evidence sufficiently supported the conspiracy conviction, and the trial judge's interventions, though frequent, did not amount to unfair conduct; therefore the conviction was safe and the application was dismissed.