Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Change of plea

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. MA KA KIN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC297/2019

Given the extraordinary factual matrix — adverse findings about the appellant's prior legal team, the trial judge's repeated and unusual expressions of unease, prejudicial directions that risked endorsing the prior 'legal advice', and failure to limit the jury's use of highly prejudicial defence-prepared documents — each member of the Court was left with a lingering substantial doubt that the conviction was safe; accordingly the conviction was quashed and sentence set aside and a retrial was declined.
9 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. LAM WING HIN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC217/2019

The plea was entered because the defendant was told there was no CCTV footage and his request for a change of solicitor was not implemented; counsel should have sought the management/shop CCTV; the defendant was deprived of full consideration and thus his plea was not voluntary, so in the interests of justice the plea was reversed to not guilty.
28 May 2014

HKSAR v. SHUM WAN FOON

Citation

HKSAR v. SHUM WAN FOON
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2013

A magistrate must inquire sufficiently into any application to reverse a guilty plea before sentencing; failure to do so is a departure from established legal norm and requires allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions. Ordinarily the matter should be remitted to the magistrate to inquire into the plea reversal, but an appellate court may exceptionally quash convictions without remitting where special circumstances (substantial delay, prejudice to fair trial, sentence already served, public interest) justify that course.
13 Jul 2000

HKSAR v. LEE CHI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE CHI LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA346/2000

The plea was valid because the appellant knowingly admitted facts that constituted the offence, the plea was voluntary and informed after advice from counsel who was told the appellant was not drug‑affected; counsel had no duty to obtain a medical report when the appellant denied impairment; the proffered medical report was not admitted as it could have been obtained earlier and would not cause a miscarriage of justice; therefore the application to change plea and to admit fresh evidence failed and the appeal was dismissed.
3 Mar 1995

R. v. LAM YIN

Citation

R. v. LAM YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1592/1994

Although the magistrate did not err in accepting unequivocal guilty pleas in the absence of clear indications the defendant was unaware of the charge or his rights, the alleged misrepresentation by an immigration officer was capable of vitiating the pleas and required factual inquiry; the magistrate should have adjourned to elicit evidence or the appellate court should hear the evidence, therefore the appeal is adjourned for a factual hearing.
1 Feb 1994

LAM MING CHAI v. R.

Citation

LAM MING CHAI v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/1992

On the totality of the evidence—including counsel's affidavit, counsel's plea in mitigation, and the applicant's own grounds of appeal—the court concluded the applicant's plea was a clear and voluntary admission of guilt, the claim of being overborne was rejected, and the 13 year sentence complied with applicable sentencing guidance; leave to appeal was refused.
18 Jun 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC39/1985

The conviction was upheld because the evidence supported the finding that the shooting was intentional or within the common design and the trial judge correctly and sufficiently directed the jury on accident and common design; the change of plea did not render the trial unfair.
21 Jan 1972

FUNG KWOK MING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

FUNG KWOK MING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC807/1971

The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's reasons for disbelieving the appellant's account were insufficient to justify refusal to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea; the discretion was not properly exercised, so leave to change the plea was granted and a trial ordered.