Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lucas direction

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2003

YUEN KWAI CHOI v. HKSAR

Citation

YUEN KWAI CHOI v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2002

Because rebuttal evidence undermined the appellant's credibility on a material issue relevant to knowledge and the trial judge failed to give a lies direction tailored to the appellant, there was a real risk the jury might improperly infer guilt from that lie; the omission was an error and the proviso could not be applied to sustain the conviction; appeal allowed, conviction quashed, sentence set aside and retrial ordered.
17 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI LEUK

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI LEUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA855/1998

The magistrate correctly directed himself on lies (Lucas direction), properly assessed the mixed cautioned statement and gave it appropriate weight, and his findings supporting the theft conviction and the 3-month sentence were justified; therefore both conviction and sentence stand.
14 Feb 1996

R. v. LAM HON POR

Citation

R. v. LAM HON POR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC524/1994

The trial judge's directions on trafficking, identification (Turnbull), and assessment of the defendant's evidence and demeanour were adequate; a Lucas direction was not required in this straightforward case where the jury accepted prosecution identification evidence and rejected the defendant's conflicting account; the defence evidence constituted a direct conflict rather than a formal alibi (no s.65D notice), therefore no alibi direction was required; the verdict was safe and the appeal dismissed.
31 Oct 1995

R. v. CHONG CHAK ON

Citation

R. v. CHONG CHAK ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC633/1994

The judge's directions on lies were sufficient for the facts; Lucas is not a rigid formula and only those Lucas requirements applicable to the case need be given (generally the first three), with the fourth requirement necessary where lies are used as corroboration or to support identification; there was no unfair trial or appearance of bias; the conviction was safe; and although the sentencing judge erred in the THC conversion approach the 20‑year sentence was not wrong given the exceptional quantity and value of the drugs under Chan Chi-man guidelines, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
11 May 1995

R. v. LEE GEE YAN

Citation

R. v. LEE GEE YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC523/1994

The trial judge did not err in refusing to give a general Lucas direction and in his overall summing-up: the weight of any uncautioned answers was for the jury, there was no evidential basis to direct on the police stake-out or to exclude PW1's comment, and the judge had correctly instructed the jury on burden of proof; consequently no miscarriage of justice was shown and leave to appeal was dismissed.
22 Feb 1995

R v. MOK LUN

Citation

R v. MOK LUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC502/1993

The failure to give a Lucas direction when the prosecution relied on alleged lies as evidence of guilt was an error of law that could not be cured on these facts by the strength of the other evidence or by application of the proviso; the conviction on Count 2 must be quashed and a new trial ordered.
21 Feb 1995

R. v. LI KWOK

Citation

R. v. LI KWOK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/1994

The convictions were upheld because the jury could reasonably and coherently accept the applicant's admissions as relating to counts 4 and 6 while rejecting them as to counts 1 and 2 given material differences and vagueness; the trial judge properly exercised discretion to permit cross-examination on prior convictions under s.54(1)(f)(ii); the flawed sentence on lies in the summing-up was, in context, not prejudicial and any defect was harmless, so the convictions were not unsafe.
5 Jul 1994

HO CHE-CHUNG v. R.

Citation

HO CHE-CHUNG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/1993

Because prosecuting counsel expressly invited the jury to infer guilt from the appellant's alleged lies and no Lucas direction was given, the trial judge misdirected the jury; that misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe and the appeal must be allowed and convictions set aside.