Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury direction

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2023

HKSAR v. CHAN CHU LEUNG (陳柱良)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 23
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC52/2022

Leave to appeal was granted because the Court was satisfied that points of law of great and general importance were involved; the Court formulated the specific question concerning the permissibility of prosecutorial use of a defendant's pre-trial silence and confined leave to the applicant's complaints about the second impugned cross-examination (fluorescent powder), also granting leave on the substantial and grave injustice basis as to whether any infringement was cured by the judge's jury direction.
28 Oct 2022

RE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1635
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CASJ2/2021

The court held the correct test for a submission of no case to answer is the Galbraith test as applied in Attorney General v Li Fook Shiu Ronald: the judge must decide, on prosecution evidence taken at its highest (and excluding defence explanations save insofar as they are objectively incontrovertible), whether a reasonable jury properly directed could, may or might be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the required inferences; judges in the three referred cases wrongly accepted or evaluated defence-only explanations and made factual findings thereby usurping the jury, and their rulings of…
25 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. CHUNG YIU LAM

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1544
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC252/2018

The conviction was quashed because the judge, without prior notice, gave an alternative aiding-and-abetting direction that departed from the prosecution's elected joint-enterprise case and lacked a sufficient evidential foundation, thereby prejudicing the defence's right to a fair trial; a retrial was ordered in the interests of justice.
21 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. HUI KA LOK, SAM

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3167
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC148/2020

Count Two was severed because its evidence, being post-offence conduct, posed a real risk of prejudice that could lead a jury to infer guilt on the very serious Count One; severance was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to avoid undue complication and lengthening of proceedings.
3 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. YUEN YU KIN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 447
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC29/2019

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the alleged failure to give a 'full' lies direction was not reasonably arguable: the direction given (that lies affect credibility only and do not prove guilt) was adequate in the circumstances, the lie about the phone number could be explained as tactical or socially understandable, and defence counsel did not request a fuller direction at trial such that no real risk of impermissible reasoning was shown.
2 Apr 2019

HKSAR v. LAM SHUN CHOI (藍順財)

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 14
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC65/2018

Because the applicant advanced only one innocent explanation at trial and did not suggest other innocent explanations to the judge or jury, the trial judge was not required to hypothesize or direct the jury about hypothetical innocent explanations; the directions given were clear and did not amount to impermissible propensity reasoning, therefore the leave application was unarguable and dismissed.
22 Feb 2019

香港特別行政區訴劉偉強

Citation

[2019] HKCA 207
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2017

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge erred by including an instruction about the defendant's opportunity to avoid the threat (the 'escape' question) which was inappropriate and potentially misleading in a case properly characterized as duress of circumstances; that misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing of conviction and sentence.
6 Sept 2016

香港特別行政區訴譚曙光

Citation

香港特別行政區訴譚曙光
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2016

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's summing-up went beyond permissible comment and conveyed an impression of favouring the prosecution, thereby undermining the jury's independent role; that unfairness rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing and remittal for retrial before a different judge and jury.
4 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA

Citation

HKSAR v. MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC19/2014

The Appeal Committee held that the issue proposed was not a viable point of sufficient importance, that the Court of Appeal's dismissal was unassailable and the applicant's case not reasonably arguable, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
5 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. HAU CHAU SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. HAU CHAU SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2012

The Court held that there was no misdirection by the trial judge, no procedural irregularity or evidential defect sufficient to render the conviction unsafe, the jury had been properly directed on the defence and the inferences to be drawn from the quantity/value of the drugs, and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.