Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Jury deliberations

  • 20 Feb 2025

    HKSAR v. OKAFOR CHRISTIAN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 176
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC20/2021

    Given the factual matrix (admitted CCTV/photographs, submissions on both sides, and strong corroborative circumstantial evidence linking phones and timing to the parcel), the judge's directions on identification and on inferential reasoning were adequate and not misleading; there was no undue pressure on the jury; the conviction was safe and the renewal application for leave to appeal and the appeal were dismissed.

  • 28 Apr 2008

    LAM CHI KWONG v. HKSAR

    Citation
    LAM CHI KWONG v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC3/2008

    Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge’s directions to the jury showed a sufficiently serious departure from accepted norms in two specific respects — guidance on how jurors should deliberate and the position if they could not achieve the majority required for a verdict — such that substantial and grave injustice may have occurred.

  • 6 Nov 2006

    CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

    Citation
    CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC6/2006

    The trial judge's directions on how jurors should deliberate were materially flawed (use of board of directors analogy, 'give and take', 'collectively') and produced a contradictory amalgam apt to confuse the jury; therefore the jury was misdirected, convictions were quashed, the proviso to s.83 CPO was not applied because it could not be said a properly instructed jury would inevitably convict, and a retrial for the 1st appellant on specified false accounting counts was ordered with bail pending retrial.

  • 29 Jan 1999

    HKSAR v. KONG KWONG SAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. KONG KWONG SAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC135/1998

    The Court held there was no legal error: Lord Goff's approach in Luc Thiet Thuan correctly construes the statute such that mental infirmity reducing self‑control is not attributed to the reasonable person for provocation; there were no relevant characteristics requiring a Camplin direction; the trial judge adequately placed background and history before the jury; the judge properly exercised discretion on late deliberations; and the mortuary photographs were sufficiently probative. Accordingly the conviction was safe and the application dismissed.