Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misdirection in summing-up

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. MINHAJAUL

Citation

[2021] HKCA 2019
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC139/2017

Prosecution did not act improperly in declining to call Hoque; the s65B statement was introduced by agreement and as a defence tactical tool; defence counsel elected not to require the maker’s attendance or cross-examine; any limited misdirection concerning the s65B statement did not occasion a miscarriage of justice and the verdict is safe, so the appeal is dismissed (conviction and sentence affirmed).
25 Mar 2020

HKSAR v. CHAN HING KAI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 123
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC65/2017

Although the applicant's conduct had brought suspicion on him, the Court exercised its discretion to award the applicant his costs of the trial because the conviction was quashed for a material misdirection which deprived him of a fair trial and a retrial was ordered, making it just and reasonable to compensate him for trial expenses.
10 Oct 1995

R. v. NG CHIU LEUNG

Citation

R. v. NG CHIU LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC284/1995

Although the trial judge omitted the standard cautionary direction regarding co-defendant incriminating evidence and made an imperfect reference to s.47, the jury could properly have concluded on the evidence that the applicant was in possession and knew the nature of the drugs; the material misdirection did not produce a miscarriage of justice, so the conviction is safe; the 11 year sentence is within the appropriate tariff and may properly run consecutively to the existing 18 months, so sentence appeal fails.
23 Aug 1994

WONG HING TONG v. R.

Citation

WONG HING TONG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC45/1993

Minor inaccuracies and comments in a lengthy summing-up do not render a verdict unsafe where the central issue—whether the three police surveillance officers correctly identified the ransom collector—was left plainly for the jury to decide, and where discrepancies were immaterial to the quality of the core identification evidence; accordingly the appeal for leave was refused and conviction upheld.
16 Nov 1987

RE FONG CHI MING

Citation

RE FONG CHI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1589/1987

The court held that the coroner's jury verdict must be quashed because (1) there was insufficient evidence before the jury to be sure that the applicant (Fong) had caused the deceased's death, and (2) the Coroner's summing-up contained serious misdirections and non-directions of law—notably failing to instruct the jury that they must be sure (beyond reasonable doubt when appropriate) before naming any person other than the principal suspect and failing to direct that if not so sure they should return homicide by person unknown—thereby rendering the verdict unsafe and amenable to quashing on j…
17 Mar 1983

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-LAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1120/1981

The conviction of the 1st appellant (D1) was quashed because the trial judge materially misdirected on facts and law (including improper reliance on the guilty pleas of co-accused and other factual errors) such that the misdirections were significant and might have misled the judge into convicting; the proviso could not be applied because the court could not be satisfied the conviction would inevitably have been reached absent the errors. A new trial for D1 was ordered in the interests of justice (with Crown undertaking not to call evidence about D2 and D4). By contrast, the convictions of D3…
30 Aug 1978

KAO HANG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

KAO HANG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/1977

The trial judge's directions on accomplice evidence and corroboration were materially deficient (failure to rule on accomplice status, to define and limit corroboration, and to warn that one accomplice cannot corroborate another), leaving the jury without clear legal guidance; the deficiencies rendered the conviction unsafe and the proviso could not be applied, therefore the conviction must be quashed and the sentence set aside.
19 Jan 1977

HO WAI-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HO WAI-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC903/1976

Although the trial judge misdirected the jury by suggesting the etiology did not require expert evidence, there was no evidence before the jury of the etiological causes required by s3; therefore the misdirection could not have led to a verdict other than murder and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
17 Dec 1974

WONG WAI-YIN AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG WAI-YIN AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC552/1974

The court held the contested confessional statements were admissible as voluntary despite procedural breaches; section 24A(2) permits reintroduction of counts based on depositions including charges previously rejected on committal; there was sufficient evidence to put the sixth and seventh appellants to their defence; convictions were upheld and selected sentences were adjusted.