Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No case to answer (galbraith)

Legal area

Court

18 May 2022

HKSAR v. FUNG SIU LUNG JOE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 668
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC73/2021

The judge correctly treated the weight discrepancies and alleged tampering as factual matters for the jury rather than grounds for a voir dire on admissibility of the exhibits; the voir dire on the voluntariness of admissions was properly conducted and the admissions were rightly admitted; the judge properly rejected the no case submission because credibility and chain of custody issues were matters for the jury; the summing-up adequately addressed burden, admissions and weight discrepancy issues; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
11 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. MA KA KIN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC297/2019

Given the extraordinary factual matrix — adverse findings about the appellant's prior legal team, the trial judge's repeated and unusual expressions of unease, prejudicial directions that risked endorsing the prior 'legal advice', and failure to limit the jury's use of highly prejudicial defence-prepared documents — each member of the Court was left with a lingering substantial doubt that the conviction was safe; accordingly the conviction was quashed and sentence set aside and a retrial was declined.
9 Apr 2019

HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC149/2018

Section 16 discharge was unavailable because both defendants had already been arraigned and the amended indictment did not alter the relevant counts; the court must assess the sufficiency of evidence by reference to the committal bundle as filed, and on that material there was a prima facie case against both defendants; accordingly s.16 applications were dismissed and severance was refused, prejudice being manageable by agreed redactions and jury directions.
27 Jul 2017

HKSAR v. T.P.D.

Citation

HKSAR v. T.P.D.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC177/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge conducted a thorough, careful analysis of credibility and reliability issues, resolved conflicts rationally (including the timing of conversations), correctly applied statutory provisions on recorded interviews, did not rely on the impugned re-examination, and there was no reasonably arguable error rendering the convictions unsafe or unsatisfactory.
21 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. LEPCHA DANIEL GYAMTSHO

Citation

HKSAR v. LEPCHA DANIEL GYAMTSHO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA975/2006

The appellate court found no error in the magistrate's fact‑finding: PW3's evidence taken in context supported that one of the attackers fled towards the blue sign and the police apprehension of the appellant at that location within seconds justified an irresistible inference that the appellant was one of the attackers; the magistrate was entitled to conclude PW3 misunderstood a cross‑examination question and to prefer the combined witness evidence, therefore the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the appeal failed.
15 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA146/2005

The magistrate erred in law by misstating his basis for the no-case ruling, by relying on unproduced alibi material and on another defendant's admissions as if they were evidence against the appellants; because the acquittal stemmed from unsatisfactory identification evidence and the magistrate applied incorrect legal reasoning in refusing costs, the appellate court allowed the appeal and ordered costs for the appellants.
7 Feb 2002

HKSAR v. LING KAM-WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. LING KAM-WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC88/2001

Although the trial judge was entitled to leave the case to the jury under Galbraith because the case turned on the reliability of PW1, the cumulative weight of material inconsistencies, lies, improbabilities and the central dependence on an unreliable single youthful witness rendered the conviction unsafe under s.83 CPO and required quashing of the conviction.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. FUNG SIU LUNG JOE

HKSAR v. MA KA KIN

HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. T.P.D.

HKSAR v. LEPCHA DANIEL GYAMTSHO

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI WING AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LING KAM-WAH