Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abandonment of appeal

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. FUNG WING LAM, CORRENR

Citation

[2026] HKCA 893
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC136/2023

The abandonment was not a nullity because the applicant understood the consequences of signing Form VII and her decision was not shown to be uninformed or involuntary; moreover, even if reinstated the sentence would not have been materially different given the applicant's significant role, the wider scope of the conspiracy and aggravating features, so the application to reinstate was refused.
21 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. CAMARA KANDJA

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1050
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/2021

Because inconsistent translated documents and the applicant's limited English and procedural understanding created real confusion as to what was being abandoned, the purported Form VII abandonment of the sentence appeal was not the result of a deliberate and informed decision and must be treated as a nullity; accordingly the Court could entertain the sentence appeal and, applying the revised Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines and proper assessment of role and culpability, reduced the sentence to 20.5 years' imprisonment.
3 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. RAJA RAJESWARY P KAGASFARON

Citation

[2024] HKCA 595
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC196/2020

Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the applicant's explanation for delay was bizarre and provided no justification, there were no substantial and plainly arguable grounds of appeal against sentence, and the sentencing judge did not err in applying the guidelines and adjustments; accordingly leave to appeal against sentence out of time was refused, though the Court recommended consideration by the Director of Legal Aid of assistance to explore treating the abandonment of the conviction appeal as a nullity.
23 May 2024

HKSAR v. CAMARA KANDJA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 488
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the summing-up and directions given by the trial judge, including Specimen Direction 21.2, were correct; the jury's rejection of the duress defence was a permissible factual finding on the evidence and there were no reasonably arguable grounds that the conviction was unsafe.
22 Feb 2023

HKSAR v. CHAK KONG FAI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 202
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/2019

The Court refused to treat the Notice of Abandonment as a nullity because the applicant signed it with an understanding of its nature and effect after sustained advice and communications; his evidence of being misled was not sufficiently credible to show he did not deliberately and informedly abandon the sentence appeal. Consequently the Court had no jurisdiction to reopen the dismissed appeal and, in any event, would have refused leave to appeal the sentence because the total 15 year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
31 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN CHU LEUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1222
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC160/2010

The Court held that the limited cross-examination about non-disclosure of 'Ah Chu' should not have been permitted but the trial judge's repeated, emphatic directions explaining the right to silence and expressly directing the jury to ignore that part of evidence cured any prejudice; cross-examination on alleged fabrication of fluorescent powder and lack of complaint was permissible in context; the summing-up fairly addressed inferential reasoning and the defence case; and continuing the trial despite two co-accused absences was proper with appropriate jury directions — accordingly the convict…
12 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. DIALANI PRAKASH KHUBCHAND

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA122/2022

Notice of the appeal was served; the appellant failed to attend and gave no explanation after an adjournment; applying the presumption of abandonment and the court's inherent discretion, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
7 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. LAU KA CHUN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC55/2021

The applicant's leave application was dismissed because he confirmed abandonment and the appeal was patently devoid of merit; the court ordered 4 weeks loss of time for failing to file a formal notice of abandonment and for cavalier conduct; the original sentence of 4 years and 2 months imprisonment was upheld as appropriate given multiplicity of offences, substantial stolen value and damage caused, and proper application of guilty plea reduction and totality principles.
13 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. KOFI FRIMPONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1166
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC137/2020

The Single Judge accepted that the applicant had abandoned his application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal; although the circumstances involved last‑minute abandonment and caused wasted resources, the Judge exercised discretion not to make a loss of time order in this case while issuing a clear warning that similar conduct risks such an order in future.
16 Dec 2020

PHAGAMI SHIVA v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3071
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1709/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show he had ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for the required continuous period of 7 years immediately before applying for permanent residency; accordingly the intended substantive appeal was bound to fail and the judicial review application had no realistic prospect of success; complaints of fettering and delay were without merit on the facts.