Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prosecutorial conduct

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2024

CHAN YAT CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL204/2024

The court found that the SG's categorical conclusion that there was no serious default by the ICAC or Prosecution was Wednesbury irrational because the Court of Appeal's criticisms of the prosecution, properly read, identified flaws amounting to serious default or high negligence which the SG impermissibly downplayed. The court nevertheless held that the SG's finding that there was serious doubt about the Applicant's innocence was rationally open to him on the available circumstantial evidence, and that rights to silence and presumption of innocence do not preclude administrative consideratio…
5 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴曾天喜

Citation

[2024] HKCA 515
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/2023

The Court held that the sentencing judge gave adequate reasons: the applicant's extensive criminal record and the co-defendant's cooperation justified the disparity and the elevated sentencing benchmarks; there was no basis to conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive or that prosecutorial conduct produced an unfair result, therefore the leave application was refused.
22 Nov 2022

香港特別行政區訴高卓梵

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1746
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC19/2021

Application for original‑trial costs was refused because there were two positive reasons to deny costs: (1) the appellant’s conduct objectively invited suspicion (receipt of a package containing drugs and drugs and paraphernalia found at home); and (2) the prosecution’s case had considerable strength and the trial/appellate errors were technical rather than demonstrating lack of prosecutorial merit; additionally the appellant had been granted legal aid for the retrial, removing the special financial burden considered in Chan Hing Kai (No.2).
1 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. MASIH MALKEET

Citation

[2021] HKCA 458
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/2019

The judge’s failure to address and dispel an improper prosecutorial suggestion that the appellant’s modest lifestyle and possession of an iPhone and ability to offer bail implied gang membership rendered the conviction unsafe despite otherwise strong evidence; appeal allowed, conviction quashed, sentence set aside and retrial ordered.
12 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. LEE WAI MAN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 485
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC82/2019

Prosecuting counsel's closing invited an impermissible line of reasoning on provocation by asking the jury to treat disproportion between the provocation and the response as determinative of the objective test, the trial judge repeated and endorsed that error in the summing-up, rendering the conviction unsafe; because the evidence on diminished responsibility was contested, substitution was inappropriate and the interests of justice required a retrial on a fresh indictment for murder.
25 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. MOHAMMED BASHIR ABDULLAHI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA16/2019

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate rightly accepted the credible testimony of the complainant and her witness; the prosecutor's mistake regarding a prior record was inadvertent and corrected and did not vitiate the conviction; the magistrate properly conducted a s.104 review and gave a Berrada/good character direction; defence counsel's tactical choices were reasonable, and there is no basis for appellate interference with the credibility findings or the convictions.
28 Feb 2017

香港特別行政區訴楊春霞

Citation

香港特別行政區訴楊春霞
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC427/2015

The court refused to order a retrial because the appellant’s successful appeal was caused by the prosecution’s unduly narrow basis at trial; it would be unfair to require the appellant to face another prosecution for an offence that was neither egregious in amount nor role, she had already largely served the sentence, and refusing retrial would not materially harm the public interest.
15 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI WING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOI WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC25/2014

The convictions were quashed because two material irregularities occurred: (1) prosecution counsel impermissibly made a closing speech after an unrepresented defendant had given evidence and called no other witnesses; and (2) the trial judge failed to revisit and determine whether the unamended indictment and disclosure of the co-accused's guilty plea should be presented to the jury after defence counsel was discharged. These irregularities undermined trial fairness and the proviso was inapplicable, requiring quashing of the conviction and ordering a retrial.
6 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. BRIAN ALFRED HALL

Citation

HKSAR v. BRIAN ALFRED HALL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC18/2012

The Court upheld the convictions because the evidence that the documents were forged and that Hall knowingly used them to pervert the course of justice was overwhelming and the trial judge applied the correct legal standards; the sentencing judge erred in law by misstating the maximum penalty and by improperly treating distinct offences as intermingled for concurrency, so the Court substituted longer individual sentences and adjusted for totality to the District Court's jurisdictional limit, producing a new aggregate sentence of six years and nine months' imprisonment.
22 Aug 2012

HKSAR v. CHIONG BERNARD LEOCARIO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIONG BERNARD LEOCARIO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/2010

The summing-up was unbalanced and unfair: the judge's comments effectively invited the jury to accept the complainant's account and reject the applicant's, and the judge failed to neutralize prejudicial matters raised by prosecuting counsel (destruction of evidence and flight) that were not part of the prosecution case; as a result the conviction was unsafe and had to be quashed and the sentence set aside.