Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Diminished responsibility

  • 12 Nov 2025

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG MAN KONG

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 1018
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC29/2024

    The disputed expert opinion did not render the trial unfair because it was elicited by the defence, was relevant to issues of provocation and diminished responsibility, and the judge gave adequate directions that the jury were the sole judges of fact and were not bound by expert opinion; the complaint raised a mixed question of law and fact dependent on trial evidence and was not reasonably arguable as a pure question of law, therefore leave to appeal is refused.

  • 7 Jan 2025

    HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFA 1
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC9/2024

    An accused's out‑of‑court statements to a medical expert remain hearsay if used to prove the truth of their contents; they are admissible only as the factual basis for an expert's opinion and the weight of such opinion is for the jury to assess; the court will not create a new common‑law exception extending the mixed statement rule to admit such statements as proof of their truth and any reform is for the legislature.

  • 10 Dec 2024

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIE CHUNG

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 1149
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC213/2020

    Conviction quashed and retrial ordered because exclusion of the clinical psychologist's evidence on the issue of diminished responsibility was a material irregularity rendering the trial unfair; by contrast the trial judge was entitled to leave the murder charge to the jury and her directions on 'substantial' were adequate given the experts' equivocal evidence and relevant factual issues.

  • 11 Jul 2024

    HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI (李長再)

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFA 20
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC16/2023

    Leave to appeal was granted only on the point whether statements of an accused to a medical practitioner are hearsay and the effect on admissibility of the expert's opinion; the remainder of the application was dismissed because there was no reasonable argument that the trial judge or Court of Appeal were wrong to conclude there was insufficient evidential basis to require a jury direction on suicide pact and no substantial and grave injustice arose.

  • 12 Jun 2024

    HKSAR v. TSIM SUM KIT, ADA

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFA 14
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC1/2024

    Section 3(2) of the Homicide Ordinance does not engage or derogate from the presumption of innocence because diminished responsibility is a partial defence that only arises after the prosecution has proved the actus reus and mens rea of murder beyond reasonable doubt; alternatively, even if the presumption were engaged, the imposition of a legal burden on the accused is a proportionate and justified limitation given the practical impossibility for the prosecution to disprove the accused's mental state beyond reasonable doubt, therefore s.3(2) stands and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 22 Mar 2024

    HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 290
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC210/2018

    The Court granted an out‑of‑time certificate on the reframed Question 1 because the admissibility of an accused's statements to medical practitioners (and the consequent admissibility of the expert opinion) where the accused does not testify is a point of law of great and general importance that was involved in the Court of Appeal decision; the Court refused a certificate on Question 2 because the meaning of "the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact" did not arise on the facts and was not a point of great and general importance in the decision.

  • 27 Dec 2023

    HKSAR v. BUI VAN-CUONG

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFA 46
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC35/2023

    The Court held the trial judge's directions were adequate and the jury had been fully apprised of the relevant matters; the applicant's personal hardships and mental state were not germane to the gravity of the alleged provocation (punches) and therefore not properly attributed to the hypothetical reasonable person; the Court of Appeal properly refused to admit fresh psychiatric evidence because doing so would unlawfully import diminished responsibility into provocation. The grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

  • 30 Aug 2023

    HKSAR v. TSIM SUM-KIT, ADA

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 927
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC153/2021

    The legal burden imposed by section 3(2) to prove diminished responsibility does not engage the presumption of innocence in a way that invalidates the provision, and even if it did it is justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate aim; existing authorities properly govern when lies directions are required and no certificate on either point of law is warranted.

  • 17 Mar 2023

    HKSAR v. BUI VAN-CUONG

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 367
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC180/2020

    The Court held the trial judge's directions on provocation were adequate and the jury were sufficiently apprised of the defendant's background; mental illness cannot be treated as a characteristic attributable to the reasonable man for the objective limb of provocation unless the provocation was directed at that illness; the late psychiatric evidence was not credible in light of the remand history and would not have altered the verdict; therefore out‑of‑time leave was refused and the conviction upheld.

  • 16 Mar 2023

    HKSAR v. LEE WAI MAN

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 370
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC54/2021

    Given deliberate conduct amounting to borderline murderous intent (returning home twice, changing clothes, arming himself) and persistent alcohol dependence with high relapse risk and limited insight, the proper starting point was 16 years' imprisonment for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility; the appellant was not entitled to a full one‑third plea discount because he pleaded to manslaughter simpliciter, ran multiple defences at trial and did not comply with Lam Kai Man formality, and a 20% discount was appropriate, producing a sentence of 12 years and 9 months' imprisonment.