Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial conduct and bias

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2019

香港特別行政區訴方斌

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1214
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC312/2018

The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge's interventions were legitimate clarificatory questions not evidence of bias, the trial judge properly found the applicant's confessions were voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence (CCTV and recovery of knife), and the acceptance of the prosecution witnesses despite some weaknesses was reasonable; there was no arguable ground for a successful appeal and the conviction is therefore safe.
5 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA508/2015

On rehearing the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, as proprietor and contractor responsible, failed to provide and maintain a safe system of work, adequate instruction and supervision, and a suitable lower working platform; the statutory and common law defences were not established; the magistrate's conduct and assessment of expert and witness evidence were proper and not plainly wrong; the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
10 Oct 2014

香港特別行政區訴余炳新

Citation

香港特別行政區訴余炳新
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA348/2014

The appeal is allowed because the trial judge's conduct towards the appellant, when viewed against the single-witness nature of the case, created a real impression of unfairness and lack of even-handedness; that undermined confidence in the safety of the conviction and required the conviction to be quashed.
14 Dec 2007

HKSAR v. CHAN KAI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA123/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate permissibly found on the evidence, including the appellant's own admissions in the VIR and the context and value of the benefits, that the appellant accepted the advantages believing or suspecting they were given as inducements or rewards to secure his assistance in relation to PNS affairs (notably provision of packaging materials); s11 removes the necessity to prove intent to perform the act and the magistrate's credibility findings justified admission of the VIR; the magistrate's limited inappropriate remark did not render the trial unfair or…
5 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN YIN YAT KEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YIN YAT KEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/2005

The Court held the trial was fair despite some inappropriate remarks by the judge which did not affect the overall fairness; defence counsel's conduct was within proper tactical discretion and the applicant had consented to witness decisions; accomplice evidence and documentary proof provided overwhelming evidence of guilt; therefore there was no merit in the grounds of appeal and the sentences imposed (total 7 years) were appropriate given role, attempted gain and the serious offence of perverting the course of justice.
13 May 1994

WAN CHIK WAI v. R.

Citation

WAN CHIK WAI v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC669/1993

Majority held conviction unsafe and quashed it because the crucial finding that the applicant was the principal occupant and thus in possession was not supported by reliable evidence: key discrepancies in police evidence were not resolved, important exhibits and the signed cautioned statement were not produced, and the trial judge made prejudicial comments affecting fairness; accordingly the proviso could not be applied to sustain the conviction.
16 Nov 1993

THE QUEEN v. KWOK WING FAT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWOK WING FAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA797/1993

Because the magistrate's conduct in limiting the appellant's prepared cross-examination and the manner of presenting reasons gave the impression of an incorrect approach to credibility and standard of proof, the conviction was unsafe; conviction quashed and retrial ordered before another magistrate with refund of fine and costs.
11 Apr 1989

THE QUEEN v. AU KWOK HING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. AU KWOK HING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC449/1988

The trial was rendered unsatisfactory because the judge's intervention at arraignment—including explanation of statutory presumptions and comments about typical sentence for the quantity involved—created an appearance of prejudice and risked inhibiting objective assessment of the accused's evidence; consequently the conviction was unsafe and must be set aside.