Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summing-up and jury directions

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. IQBAL ASIF

Citation

[2025] HKCA 126
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC93/2024

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal was granted because one ground (that the trial judge's directions on consent may have removed the issue of consent from the jury's consideration in a rape trial involving a 14‑year‑old) was reasonably arguable and would be a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal; all other grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused for them. Legal aid was granted limited to the arguable ground and related issues.
2 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. RAJA RAJESWARY P KAGASFARON

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1518
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC196/2020

The court held that grounds 1–3 were not reasonably arguable because the judge properly exercised discretion on the lies direction, there was no breach of the right to silence given inconsistent statements, and directions on defence evidence followed specimen directions. However, grounds 4 and 5 (extensive judicial interventions and an allegedly unbalanced summing-up with possible factual errors) raised reasonable arguable issues about appearance of fairness and were sufficient to grant leave to appeal against conviction on those grounds.
15 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. CHEW SIK POK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEW SIK POK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC502/1998

The summing-up contained a materially confusing and inadequate direction (notably as to the use of the cautioned statement and failure to identify and emphasise the cogent evidence supporting the defence) such that the conviction for trafficking was unsafe and must be quashed; however the evidence admitted possession of the drug and supported substitution to a conviction for simple possession, for which an appropriate sentence (16 months) was imposed after applying baseline and latent-risk sentencing principles.
13 Nov 1997

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK LEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC218/1997

The Court held that the identification evidence of Ms Yu, tested by proper Turnbull directions and the surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to send the case to the jury and to support the conviction; the exclusion of the Applicant's statement did not prevent the arresting officer from testifying; alleged irregularities in the identification parade and omissions in directions caused no prejudice; the conviction was not unsafe and the six-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
23 May 1996

R. v. CHONG WAH FUNG

Citation

R. v. CHONG WAH FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC86/1996

Leave to appeal was dismissed because, read as a whole, the summing-up was fair and the station sergeant's opinion that the applicant was an illegal immigrant was not prejudicial in a real sense given that the defence relied on that evidence to rebut robbery and the jury could properly consider proximity in time and place when inferring that items found were stolen.
22 Aug 1995

R. v. CHEUNG KA FAI & OTHERS

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG KA FAI & OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC198/1992

The intercepted telephone conversations were admissible as relevant and cogent evidence; the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (s.6(1)) does not empower a trial judge to exclude evidence admissible under established common law evidence rules on the ground of alleged privacy interference; the conjugal unity rule did not preclude conviction because the conspiracy involved persons in addition to the spouse; the summing-up was adequate and the convictions stand.
13 Aug 1987

THE QUEEN v. WONG KIM WAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KIM WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC263/1987

The Court held the indictment, jury directions and admission of the Government Chemist's Certificate were lawful and non-prejudicial; the statutory presumption under s.45(2) was properly explained and, read as a whole, the summing-up was adequate; given the quantity of chemicals sufficient to produce about 10 kilos of No.3 heroin and the appellant's role as the trusted custodian of the equipment, the eight-year sentence was appropriate; therefore both the conviction and sentence were upheld.
29 May 1984

THE QUEEN v. SIU CHEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SIU CHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC993/1983

Although the physical evidence (palmprints) was strong, the cumulative failings in the judge's summing-up — including overstating Crown submissions, mis-stating key witness testimony about numbers in the car, advancing prosecutorial inferences beyond counsel's case, and failing to clarify the jury's request before a 5-2 majority verdict — produced an unsafe trial; the convictions were therefore quashed and sentences set aside.
7 May 1974

SHUM SHUN HONG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SHUM SHUN HONG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC173/1974

The summing-up contained passages that could lead the jury to treat the first appellant's voluntary statement as the keystone of the prosecution case against all three appellants; because the court cannot be satisfied that the jury would inevitably have convicted the second and third appellants absent that influence, their convictions are unsafe and must be quashed with a retrial ordered; the first appellant's conviction stands because the statement was properly admissible against him and did not render his conviction unsafe.