Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial summing-up

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. LAM HOI KIT

Citation

[2024] HKCA 719
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC63/2023

Leave to appeal refused: the summing-up read as a whole adequately instructed the jury on burden and standard of proof and on how to treat the applicant's evidence and confession so the absence of a discrete Liberato direction was not a material irregularity; sentencing to 27 years was within proper exercise of discretion given the organiser/manager role, cross-border nature, recruitment and exploitation of two young women and the applicant's relevant prior conviction.
18 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴鄧皓文及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 167
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC40/2017

The court held that the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury about the effect of asserted police oppression on a co-accused's recorded confession: where the jury conclude oppression occurred the confession must be discarded regardless of whether parts of it appear true (Mushtaq principle). That error rendered the conviction of the second applicant unsafe; leave to appeal and the appeal were allowed for him and his conviction quashed. By contrast the first applicant's challenges failed because the trial judge repeatedly and adequately directed the jury that the co-accused's confessi…
24 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC527/2001

The summing‑up was fair and balanced; the circumstantial and forensic evidence (fibres, DNA, pathologist's findings), together with the applicant's flight and demonstrably false alibi, sufficed to support the jury's guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt; there was no irregularity meriting leave to appeal and no basis to order post‑trial production of CCTV that was available at the time of trial; accordingly leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. LI LAI YEE

Citation

HKSAR v. LI LAI YEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC554/2003

The Court found the summing up to be fair and balanced, the circumstantial evidence substantial, and no arguable grounds to render the conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction and against sentence was dismissed and the mandatory life sentence upheld.
19 Apr 2001

HKSAR v. LAU PING HIM & ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU PING HIM & ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC455/2000

There was sufficient evidence (occupancy, discovery of drugs and paraphernalia, oral admissions) for a reasonable jury to convict; the oral admission was admissible despite absence of a signed notebook entry; and the imposed sentences fell within applicable sentencing guidelines for the quantities involved and were not manifestly excessive, so both the conviction (D1) and the sentences (D1 and D2) were upheld.
11 Apr 2001

HKSAR v. LOW CHAK KEUNG ROSON

Citation

HKSAR v. LOW CHAK KEUNG ROSON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC390/1999

The application was dismissed because the direct observational evidence, discovery of heroin in the bags, and the applicant's fingerprints on the packaging established possession and knowledge such that no reasonable doubt remained; the trial judge's summing-up and conduct were within permissible bounds and no miscarriage of justice was shown.
29 Aug 1997

HKSAR v. SO YIU KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. SO YIU KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC60/1997

Given the medical and factual evidence of strangulation and stabbing, and the impartial, comprehensive summing-up by the trial judge, the jury's verdict of guilty for murder was the only conclusion properly open on the evidence; there was no demonstration of prejudice or unfairness warranting interference.
15 Jun 1995

R. v. PHONG UNG CAU

Citation

R. v. PHONG UNG CAU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC630/1994

The Court held that neither the length/complexity of the trial nor the asserted misdirection regarding PW32 rendered the convictions unsafe: the jury were capable of assessing the evidence, defence had Exhibit 201 and emphasised misidentification, multiple independent identifications supported guilt, and the questioned directions could not be shown to have materially influenced the verdicts; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
31 May 1995

R. v. CHEUNG SHING and Others

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG SHING and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC534/1994

Leave to appeal was refused for the first applicant because the rape was particularly serious and the sentence was appropriate; leave to appeal and conviction were refused for the second applicant because there was no misdirection and the identification evidence was properly considered; the third applicant's sentence was reduced by one year because the starting point and guilty plea discount combined placed the sentence above the appropriate range.
12 Apr 1995

R. v. Louella Avila Dixon

Citation

R. v. Louella Avila Dixon
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC405/1994

The Court held the summing-up was faultless and the jury's verdict was safe; on sentence the applicant had in fact received a term below the correct tariff for trafficking in 'ice', therefore there was no merit in the application and leave to appeal was refused.