Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury discharge

Legal area

Court

20 Aug 2025

HKSAR v. FADONOUGBO FREJUS LEZIN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 524
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2022

The Court proceeded on the basis it had jurisdiction in exceptional cases to consider complaints about the discharge of an earlier jury but concluded that, on the facts, the trial judge’s discharge did not produce unfairness to the appellant and did not render the subsequent conviction unsafe; therefore the conviction stands. Separately, applying the new sentencing guideline, the Court substituted the original sentence with 19 years and 3 months' imprisonment.
18 Sept 2023

HKSAR v. FADONOUGBO FREJUS LEZIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 808
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2022

The judge correctly and comprehensively directed the jury on the voluntariness of the recorded interview and other evidential issues and the first three grounds of appeal lacked merit; the fourth ground (discharge of the first jury) raised a question of general importance to the administration of justice and therefore leave to appeal was granted to permit full appellate consideration of when discharge is appropriate and the consequences, if any, for a subsequent conviction.
24 May 2023

HKSAR v. HAO MAY (formerly known as WANG MAY YAN) (alias MAY WANG)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 11
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2023

Section 4 CCCO does not empower the trial court to award defence costs when a jury trial collapses without a verdict and a retrial is to be held; s4 is engaged only where the defendant 'is not tried' in the sense that the criminal process in respect of the offence has come to an end in the defendant's favour, and an aborted trial without finality is a neutral event that does not justify a s4 costs order.
30 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

The application for a stay was refused because the exceptional threshold for staying criminal proceedings was not met: despite prolonged delay and witness memory issues the court concluded a fair trial remained possible, the prosecution case was sufficiently strong and important public interests in prosecuting serious economic offences outweighed the accused’s hardship; there was no demonstrated abuse of process that would render further trial oppressive or unjust.
6 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2308
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

Section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance confers jurisdiction to award costs where a defendant 'is not tried' for an offence, which includes situations where a jury is discharged during an ongoing trial and no verdict is reached; s17 did not apply because the impugned questioning was not unnecessary or improper; exercising the discretion under s4 on compensatory grounds, the court awarded the accused their costs of the retrial (including the costs application), to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel, subject to submissions within 14 days.
19 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. CHIM CHOI LAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIM CHOI LAN<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC425/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the jury received appropriate directions about inconsistencies and inference by association, the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in managing jury concerns, the application to adduce fresh evidence lacked a reasonable explanation and would not have changed the outcome, and there was no substantiated lurking doubt rendering the conviction unsafe.
28 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. LEE KOON FAT

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KOON FAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC416/2010

The trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury because the witness's statement was speculative, made by an aggrieved relative and unsupported by evidence, and the judge gave immediate, clear and repeated directions including reference to the autopsy/toxicology report which removed any real prejudice; appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge's discretion absent clear miscarriage.
28 Oct 2004

HKSAR v. NEE MAN TIK

Citation

HKSAR v. NEE MAN TIK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/2003

The trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury on the two contested matters; however the summing up contained a misdirection effectively compelling at least a manslaughter verdict without a formal admission. That misdirection warranted granting leave to appeal but, applying the proviso to s83(1) CPO, the conviction was nonetheless safe and the appeal is dismissed.
29 May 2003

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC232/2001

The accused was entitled to costs because there was no evidence his conduct during the investigation or trial brought suspicion on him; the jury acquitted him and the court would not second‑guess that verdict, therefore costs of the original trial and retrial were awarded and to be taxed if not agreed.
22 Nov 2000

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1926/2000

The court found the article to be criminal contempt because it identified the accused and published prejudicial allegations not supported by trial evidence; although the conduct was careless rather than deliberate and early acceptance and remedial steps were mitigating, the widespread publication and prejudice to the administration of justice required imposition of a fine on the publisher and an award of costs.