Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directions to jury

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2026

李篤捷對死因裁判法庭裁判官林希維先生

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1459/2025

Although the coroner's directions omitted explicit reference to a third possible causal hypothesis (drug-induced organ damage persisting after drug clearance) and emphasized 'sustained hyperkalaemia', those errors did not make the jury's verdict unreasonable. The medical evidence positively supported that the deceased had longstanding impaired renal function and that no persuasive evidence linked Septrin or external acts to causing the fatal hyperkalaemia; on the balance of probabilities the proper verdict was death from natural causes. Accordingly leave was granted on two grounds but the sub…
24 Nov 2022

HKSAR v. OUSAINOU TOURAY

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1753
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC205/2021

The Court held there was no lurking doubt: the jury were careful and competent, the judge appropriately responded to their requests (including guidance on drawing inferences about intent), the evidence permitted the reasonable inference of intent to kill, and the unanimous verdict was safe and upheld.
26 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. ROJAS MONTOYA JUAN PABLO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC78/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the evidence linked him to the flat and drugs, the judge's directions on possession and joint possession were adequate, counsel's conduct was a competent tactical choice not flagrant incompetence, there was no sufficient basis to leave an alternative s37 verdict, prior convictions negated any entitlement to a good character direction, and alleged challenges to CCTV or admissions were not supported by instruction or evidence.
25 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. LIN CHI YUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LIN CHI YUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC338/2015

On the evidence taken at its highest a properly directed jury could infer the necessary elements of joint enterprise as to the 2nd applicant (association with house, contemporaneous phone contacts, conduct at scene and an admission), the trial judge adequately directed the jury on joint enterprise, defence evidence (Liberato) and admissions (Mushtaq) adapted to the facts, the jury's request for repetition did not establish lack of English comprehension, and consequently the convictions were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory; applications for leave to appeal were refused.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. KEITA ALI

Citation

HKSAR v. KEITA ALI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC419/2015

The trial judge erred in failing to leave indecent assault as an alternative verdict because there was realistic evidential basis (complainant's evidence of being slapped on her genitalia and medical evidence consistent with blunt force or penile contact); the omission rendered the conviction for attempted rape unsafe, and under s83A CPO the Court substituted a verdict of guilty of indecent assault and quashed the attempted rape conviction.
19 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. CHAND GILL

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAND GILL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC17/2016

The leave application was dismissed because the Court concluded that (1) the summing-up as a whole adequately instructed the jury on how to treat the defendant's VRI including the Liberato principle; (2) the specimen directions on mixed statements and election not to testify were fair and not confusing; and (3) counsel's inconsistency in presenting the Count 4 case did not render the Count 3 buggery conviction unsafe since the accused admitted penetration and the disputed issue on Count 3 was whether penetration was accidental or intentional, which the jury resolved against the accused.
26 May 2016

香港特別行政區訴黃宜英

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃宜英
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC397/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned directions were correct when read in context, the exclusion of uncharged acts resulted from and was consented to as part of defence strategy, alleged juror hostility was unproven, counsel's tactical choices (including non‑use of photographs) were reasonable, and there was no substantial miscarriage of justice warranting leave.
8 Dec 2015

HKSAR v. CHAN TAM FU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TAM FU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC363/2014

Although the judge failed to give the precise 'is or may be true' direction in relation to some mixed out-of-court material and there was a narrow misdirection about how to treat interview admissions, the summing-up as a whole repeatedly and clearly explained the burden and standard of proof and specifically gave the required directions in relation to provocation; taking the whole charge and factual matrix together there was no real risk the jury convicted despite reasonable doubt, so the omission/misdirection was not material and the conviction and life sentence were safe and must be affirme…
19 May 2015

HKSAR v. LAM KING YIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KING YIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC162/2014

Because the applicant deliberately revealed his prior convictions and the trial judge, after consulting counsel, gave a contextually tailored direction that allowed the jury to treat the applicant’s frankness favorably but prohibited any adverse use of his criminal record, there was no necessity to discharge the jury; further, the prosecution ran its case on actual knowledge so no constructive knowledge direction was required; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed and the conviction stands.
13 Jan 2015

HKSAR v. TAM WAI LIM, WILLIAM

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM WAI LIM, WILLIAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC448/2013

The trial judge gave appropriate and sufficient warnings about the unreliability of the accomplice witness; having taken those warnings into account the jury were entitled to accept the accomplice's evidence and convict; therefore there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal against conviction and it is refused.