Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury trial

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2024

LAI CHEE YING v. TA KUNG PAO (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1989/2020

Application for a jury trial was dismissed because the action involved prolonged and detailed examination of a large and diverse body of documents (including 1,213 pages disclosed, 101 previous articles and 227 documents relied upon), the Reynolds public interest defence raised complex mixed issues unsuitable for a jury, and splitting factual questions between judge and jury would be inefficient and undesirable; therefore the proviso to s.33A(1) HCO applied and a judge alone trial was ordered.
12 Jul 2023

HKSAR v. OBI COSMAS NONSO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3122
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC93/2022

Given the material and disputed factual issues that are significant for sentencing (quantity attributable to each defendant and whether there was a joint enterprise), the court directed that the defendants should plead guilty to the offence as charged and that a Newton hearing be held to determine those factual issues; defendants to be arraigned before Deputy Judge Martin Hui and the prosecution to call required witnesses at the Newton inquiry.
18 Mar 2022

HO KWAN YIU v. DENNIS KWOK WING HANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 779
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1997/2019

The court granted the consent application for a jury trial because the case is of high public interest with prominent public figures involved, the central factual issues of reputation and justification are suitable for determination by jurors, the documentary material is manageable (c.559 pages and limited video clips) so s33A proviso does not apply, the novel Reynolds/privilege questions are separable for the judge, the estimated trial length is reasonable (no more than 10 days), and the parties jointly elected a jury trial.
20 May 2021

TONG YING KIT v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1397
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL473/2021

The applicant was refused leave because the NSL 46(1) certificate is a prosecutorial decision protected by Basic Law 63 and not susceptible to ordinary judicial review absent evidence of bad faith, political instruction or similar constitutional defects; there is no constitutional right to a jury trial upon preferment of indictment in the circumstances; Secretary for Justice was not required to notify or hear the applicant before issuing the certificate; the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable.
10 Jan 2020

HKSAR v. CHOW HO YIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 52
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2019

The trial judge should have granted a brief adjournment for the appellant to obtain medical attention, but viewing the trial as a whole the appellant's absence for the afternoon did not render the trial unfair or cause irremediable prejudice to his defence; the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence are upheld.
4 Aug 2017

HOI TIN TONG CO LTD v. CHOY KWOK KEUNG

Citation

HOI TIN TONG CO LTD v. CHOY KWOK KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1755/2013

The court exercised its discretion under s33A HCO and relevant RHC rules and concluded the proviso applies: the proposed trial would require prolonged examination of voluminous and complex documents/accounts and involve mixed claims outside s33A making jury directions and administration inconvenient; accordingly defendant’s application for a jury trial and for split trials was refused and the trial of liability and of damages will proceed before a judge, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
12 Feb 2015

香港特別行政區訴李艷紅

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李艷紅
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC134/2014

The appeal is allowed because the trial judge's manner of questioning the defendant created an appearance of bias and the judge gave an unnecessary and potentially misleading 'shut eyes' direction on inferring knowledge which was not justified by the facts; however the judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury. The conviction was therefore unsafe and must be quashed.
26 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. ONUMEME OKECHUKWU

Citation

HKSAR v. ONUMEME OKECHUKWU<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC41/2012

The Court found no arguable merit: the trial judge's summing up adequately addressed the defence evidence and properly directed the jury as to their role; the CCTV evidence no longer exists and Customs deny seizure of any permit; the matters complained of were not raised at trial when the applicant had representation; therefore there is no basis to grant leave to appeal against conviction.
16 Oct 2012

KOSAR MAHMOOD v. HKSAR

Citation

KOSAR MAHMOOD v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC31/2012

The application for leave was dismissed because it merely re‑argued points previously decided by the Court of Appeal and failed to identify any specific departure from accepted legal norms amounting to a "substantial and grave injustice" under s.32(2); therefore CFA leave was not warranted.
25 May 2012

CHAU HOI SHUEN, SOLINA HOLLY v. SEEC MEDIA GROUP LTD

Citation

CHAU HOI SHUEN, SOLINA HOLLY v. SEEC MEDIA GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1194/2010

The court held that the statutory scheme (s 33A HCO and O 33 r 5(1) RHC) prescribes a time limit for jury applications which the defendant failed to meet; absent an express statutory provision authorising variation at this late stage the court will not order a jury trial, and even if a residual discretion existed it would be exercised against the defendant because of lateness, inadequate explanation, risk of delay and extra cost and because the issues (innocent dissemination) are suitable for determination by a judge alone.