Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Counsel conduct

  • 21 May 2018

    HKSAR v. LI XIAOXIANG

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFA 24
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC65/2017

    The Court held that counsel's conduct did not amount to flagrant incompetence because the applicant had withdrawn the original frame-up instruction, counsel's tactical choices (abandoning the frame-up defence, focusing on identification reliability, advising against testimony, not pursuing Mr Cheng) were reasonable in context, and the identified errors were immaterial and did not render the trial unfair; therefore the leave application was not reasonably arguable and was dismissed.

  • 22 Mar 2016

    HKSAR v. FUNG CHI, MARCO

    Citation
    HKSAR v. FUNG CHI, MARCO
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC11/2015

    Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked merit: the judge's directions on law and on evaluating the defendant's evidence were adequate, the absence of fingerprints was neutral and not decisive, and the failure to elicit a good character direction resulted from a considered tactical decision by defence counsel which binds the client and did not produce a miscarriage of justice.

  • 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.

  • 13 Mar 2008

    TAM CHUNG SHUN v. HKSAR

    Citation
    TAM CHUNG SHUN v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC1/2008

    The court held that the applicant was not deprived of an opportunity to be heard because the judge raised the retrial issue with counsel and counsel declined to argue; there is no suggestion counsel was deterred or misunderstood sufficiently to vitiate the process, and the matters said to have been omitted were reasonably considered by the judge; therefore ordering a retrial was within judicial discretion and the leave application failed.

  • 27 Apr 1999

    WAN TAK v. HKSAR

    Citation
    WAN TAK v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC5/1999

    The application is dismissed because it was made out of time with no explanation, the grounds do not disclose any point meeting the statutory tests in s32(2) Cap.484, and the alleged counsel conduct does not constitute the wholly exceptional circumstances required to justify leave.

  • 19 Feb 1998

    HKSAR v. CHAN LAI CHOI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN LAI CHOI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC166/1997

    The conviction was safe despite the trial judge's failure to articulate directions on similar fact evidence because the first incident was admissible to rebut the appellant's defence and there was no miscarriage of justice; accordingly the proviso was applied to affirm conviction; the sentence of four years was excessive when compared to inland transport cases and was reduced by the Court of Appeal to reflect an appropriate starting point and credit for a clear record.

  • 26 Sept 1997

    HKSAR v. CHAN CHING FAT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN CHING FAT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC529/1996

    The convictions were upheld because the judge was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and the applicant's admissions made in voluntary cautioned statements; dates pleaded as 'on or about' are not fatal where offences are shown to have occurred within a reasonable proximity to the charged dates; vehicle evidence was not conclusive to negate the admissions or complainant's identification; defence counsel's conduct did not amount to impropriety requiring reversal, and the convictions were therefore safe.

  • 24 Mar 1995

    R. v. NG WING KWAN

    Citation
    R. v. NG WING KWAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC313/1994

    The leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the jury, properly directed by the trial judge, could lawfully convict on the totality of the evidence and there was no merit in the applicant's grounds; the extension of time to appeal sentence was refused because no satisfactory explanation for delay was provided and the deputy judge had properly applied the sentencing guidelines (including R v Lau Tak-ming) recognizing a sterner approach for manufacturing.

  • 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.