Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proviso to s83(1) criminal procedure ordinance

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KWONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KWONG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC10/1998

The Court held that although aspects of the judge's summing-up were clumsy and one passage amounted to a material irregularity, the Court of Appeal rightly concluded that no miscarriage of justice occurred and properly applied the proviso to s83(1) to dismiss the appeal; accordingly there is no point of law of great and general importance to certify and leave out of time is refused.
24 Jun 1994

TRAN DUC CUONG (VBP No.23461) and Another v. R

Citation

TRAN DUC CUONG (VBP No.23461) and Another v. R
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/1993

Majority held that although the trial judge failed to give a full Turnbull warning, the cumulative quality of the identification evidence was so strong that, applying the Goff L.J. test in R v Edwards, the proviso to s83(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance applied and the convictions were safe; one judge dissented, holding the omission fatal and ordering quashing and retrial or acquittal.
17 Feb 1994

YU CHUN MAN v. R.

Citation

YU CHUN MAN v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC435/1993

Although the trial judge erred in treating the applicant's immediate departure as conclusive evidence of flight and in drawing an unsupported inference that the applicant made silent calls, the remaining evidence—unequivocal admissions, presence near the scene, and a disbelieved alibi—was sufficiently strong that no miscarriage of justice occurred; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under the proviso to s83(1) CPO.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAM CHI KWONG

TRAN DUC CUONG (VBP No.23461) and Another v. R

YU CHUN MAN v. R.