Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Severance of charges

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴陳珩及另六人

Citation

[2020] HKDC 521
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC868/2019

The court exercised its discretion under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance to order severance because the two groups of charges concern distinct events with different participants and largely non‑overlapping evidence; trying them together would introduce irrelevant/prejudicial material into particular defendants' trials, extend hearing time and risk unfairness (notably to an unrepresented defendant), while causing no unfair prejudice to the prosecution.
27 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. ZHENG WAN TAI

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHENG WAN TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/1999

The Court held the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing severance; the evidence supported an irresistible inference that all 136 motorcycles were stolen and that the applicant knew or believed they were stolen; the doctrine of recent possession properly applies to second‑limb handling (assisting) per R v Ball and Winning; Exhibit P18 was a true copy of the manifest; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and convictions and concurrent two‑year sentences were upheld.
30 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. CHU CHI KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU CHI KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1167/1997

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's detailed findings were supported by ample evidence, the plea of the co-accused was not evidence against the appellant and did not require recusal or severance, and the magistrate's timing in giving reasons did not prejudice the defence.
7 Jan 1998

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHIM FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHIM FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC562/1997

The prosecution's severance of the imitation firearm offence to the Magistrates' Court was unjustified because the offences were inextricably linked; the sentencing judge properly adjusted sentence to reflect the magistrates' sentences and followed Mo Kwong-sang, and therefore the application to reduce sentence was dismissed.
30 Jul 1992

R. v. MARK AYIVOR

Citation

R. v. MARK AYIVOR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC359/1991

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to sever the charges because trying them together caused no injustice or prejudice to the defendant; the Bill of Rights did not apply to the Crimes Ordinance charge due to the statutory exclusion in the Schedule for the transitional period; the sentence of three years for the combined offences was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and indicia of participation in an illegal passport racket.
27 Apr 1989

THE QUEEN v. LAI CHI MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAI CHI MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC365/1988

The trial judge's findings on credibility and fact were supported by the record and not shown to be erroneous; the amended charge sheet and use of 'on divers days' were valid; the tape recordings were admissible and not unfair; no prejudice to the appellant arising from severance refusal or co-defendant's acquittal; the conviction was safe and the sentence was not excessive — consequently leave to appeal against conviction and sentence must be refused.
6 May 1983

THE QUEEN v. WU YIN WOR

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WU YIN WOR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC193/1983

The Court concluded that even assuming the District Judge had seen the extraneous summary, nothing demonstrated that his mind was so affected as to cause a miscarriage of justice; convictions therefore stand and the sentences (total eight months, consecutive) were within the Judge's reasonable discretion given the applicant's position as a station sergeant and the circumstances of the solicitations.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 陳珩及另六人

HKSAR v. ZHENG WAN TAI

HKSAR v. CHU CHI KONG

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHIM FUNG

R. v. MARK AYIVOR

THE QUEEN v. LAI CHI MAN

THE QUEEN v. WU YIN WOR

香港特別行政區訴陳珩及另六人