Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misdirection in summing up

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2006

HKSAR v. MOK SWEE CHUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK SWEE CHUAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC22/2004

D1's conviction and sentence were quashed because the summing up contained a material misdirection about the presumptions in s47 which, following the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v Hung Chan‑wa, impose only an evidential burden; the respondent did not invoke the proviso. D2's application to treat his abandonment as a nullity was dismissed because his affirmations demonstrated the abandonment was a deliberate and informed decision.
6 Apr 2006

TAM KING HON v. HKSAR

Citation

TAM KING HON v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC14/2005

The summing up misdirected the jury on how they should deliberate because the board of directors analogy combined with the unqualified 'give and take' and the statement that a four-to-three split 'will not be acceptable' risked pressuring jurors to conform; given this and an additional material misdirection on the standard of proof, the convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered because the proviso under s.83(1) CPO could not properly be applied.
8 Nov 1995

R. v. Sui Ching Chuen

Citation

R. v. Sui Ching Chuen
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC47/1994

Although the trial judge made a material misstatement by saying the applicant had been at the witness's home, the remaining substantial and unchallenged circumstantial evidence (possession and distribution of the stolen currencies, procurement of knives, identification of bag and knives, and applicant receiving a share) was sufficient that no reasonable jury could have reached a different verdict; applying the proviso to s.83(1) C.P.O. the conviction is upheld.
2 Jun 1983

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHAU-SANG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHAU-SANG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC760/1982

The conviction for possession was quashed because the trial judge's direction that knowledge arising only when firearms were fired could sustain a conviction for constructive possession was legally erroneous; however where a factual slip or limited misdirection did not produce a miscarriage of justice the proviso was applied to uphold the robbery conviction because there was ample evidence of participation; testimony of a witness about his own words and observations is admissible and distinguishable from hearsay ruled in Christie; sentencing for armed robbery including separate possession cou…
5 Nov 1982

YIM PO-LIN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YIM PO-LIN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC796/1982

The trial judge misdirected the jury by treating strong suspicion together with deliberate failure to inquire as equivalent to actual knowledge as a matter of law; wilful blindness may permit an inference of knowledge but that inference must be left to the jury to decide on the evidence, therefore the conviction is quashed and a retrial ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. MOK SWEE CHUAN AND ANOTHER

TAM KING HON v. HKSAR

R. v. Sui Ching Chuen

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHAU-SANG AND OTHERS

YIM PO-LIN v. THE QUEEN