Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summing up directions

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2016

HKSAR v. CHAU YAN KIU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU YAN KIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/2013

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the trial judge gave adequate and balanced directions on the accomplice's credibility, the hearsay about 'Sunny' was admissible as showing the witness's state of mind (and was not decisive to the conspiracy finding), the consolidated travel movements table was a permissible aide‑memoire prepared from agreed exhibits and did not introduce new evidence or cause unfairness, and on the totality of admissible evidence a reasonable jury could infer the applicant's participation in the conspiracy.
2 May 2014

HKSAR v. LAM SIU FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM SIU FUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC10/2014

The application for leave was dismissed because the jury verdict was not ambiguous — it could only reasonably be a guilty verdict of murder — and because the judge's directions on the alternative factual bases and foresight rendered a Kevin Brown direction unnecessary; consequently the questions of law of 'great and general importance' were not engaged.
28 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. HO YIN TING

Citation

HKSAR v. HO YIN TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2012

The judge's summing up was fair, accurate and comprehensive; the contested 6-point directions (including treatment of recent complaints, the finger-guessing conversation and previous consistent statements) were properly characterized as matters of fact or legitimate directions on credibility rather than usurpation of the jury's role; accordingly the conviction was not unsafe and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
2 Aug 2010

HKSAR v. NG PING CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. NG PING CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC317/2009

The court held the complaints lacked substance: counsel's objections were proper tactical decisions benefitting the accused, the contested hearsay admission was immaterial in context of directions focusing the jury on self‑defence and intention, the summing up was adequate and no miscarriage of justice was shown; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
7 Mar 2006

HKSAR v. CHOW WING MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW WING MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC286/2005

Although the trial judge erred in excluding highly probative out-of-court statements assertedly amounting to a confession, she did not err in refusing to discharge the jury; the defence had prior notice, no contemporaneous objection was made, and the judge's summing up (including directions that speeches are not evidence) sufficiently protected the fairness of the trial so the conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory.
27 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. CHEUK KA TAM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUK KA TAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC189/2000

The court held that once the defendant placed his character in issue the prosecution's cross-examination on previous convictions was permissible and had been conducted with restraint; the summing up, read as a whole, fairly directed the jury including on credibility, burden of proof and flight, no specific lies direction was required because alleged lies bore only on credibility, and any loose phraseology was not materially prejudicial; therefore the conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
26 Jul 2002

HKSAR v. KWAN SHUK CHING TRACY AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN SHUK CHING TRACY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC64/2001

The Court held the indictment was sufficiently particularised under Indictment Rules r3(1) and Landy was not offended; the evidence supported a single interlinked conspiracy in respect of each count so Griffiths did not require quashing; the judge's directions that absence of goods need not always be proved by direct evidence were correct in context because non-supply could be inferred from the totality of the evidence; and the sentencing judge was entitled to sentence on the factual matrix established at trial. Consequently leave to appeal against convictions and sentences was dismissed.
20 Nov 2000

HKSAR v. MOK TSAN PING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK TSAN PING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/1999

The convictions of D1 (murder) and D2 (manslaughter) were quashed because the trial judge materially erred in the summing up by failing to direct the jury, in terms, that to convict them (as secondary parties) they must be sure each knew that D3 was carrying a knife and might use it; a retrial on manslaughter was ordered for D1 and D2; D3's appeal was dismissed because the provocation and self-defence directions and answers to jury questions were adequate and the verdict was safe.
11 Jan 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC25/1999

The conviction was upheld because the jury, properly directed, was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence as to the events establishing rape by D1 while rejecting or doubting other parts (including alleged conduct by D2 and attempted buggery) given inconsistencies in recent complaints and medical signs; therefore the verdicts were not inconsistent and the conviction was not unsafe.
8 May 1998

HKSAR v. TUNG YUE KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. TUNG YUE KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC338/1997

The judge's questions were proper, restrained clarifications necessitated by inadequate cross-examination and did not demonstrate bias; although a passage in the summing up used language suggestive of probability, that passage must be read in context with correct standard directions given elsewhere and the misdirection was immaterial. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.