Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial judge intervention

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2021

香港特別行政區訴李偉嘉

Citation

[2021] HKCA 260
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/2019

The out‑of‑time application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused because the asserted grounds are without arguable merit: the trial judge's rulings on the 'case within a case', interventions during cross‑examination, and directions to the jury (including treatment of CCTV and WhatsApp evidence and the complainant's alleged 'blackout' and motive) were proper and did not amount to unfairness warranting appellate interference.
28 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. NUNG SAU KING, ROSA

Citation

HKSAR v. NUNG SAU KING, ROSA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA54/1998

The Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, permissibly intervened during cross-examination, and was entitled to accept the detective's eyewitness account over the appellant's explanation; no lurking doubt arose and the conviction was safe, so the appeal is dismissed.
4 Oct 1989

THE QUEEN v. TONG HEUNG YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TONG HEUNG YEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC127/1989

Confrontation identification following a suspect's refusal to attend a parade does not, by itself, render a conviction unsafe where the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the inherent dangers and specific limitations of such identification; it was not erroneous to refuse to supply prior statements to the jury where cross-examination could fairly be followed without them; and specific oral direction that the Crown must disprove an alibi is unnecessary where general directions on burden and standard of proof make the position clear.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 李偉嘉

HKSAR v. NUNG SAU KING, ROSA

THE QUEEN v. TONG HEUNG YEE

香港特別行政區訴李偉嘉