Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial misdirection

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2009

LEUNG WAI LUN v. HKSAR

Citation

LEUNG WAI LUN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC40/2003

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed: absent wholly exceptional circumstances a second application for leave after dismissal of the first will not be entertained; the applicant failed to show any such exceptional circumstances, the complained-of points could and should have been raised earlier, and the long delay precluded extension of time, therefore leave is refused.
28 Nov 1995

R. v. WONG SIU LUNG

Citation

R. v. WONG SIU LUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC610/1994

The judge committed a material error by effectively discounting the accused's good character for propensity solely because many robberies are committed by young men; that misdirection was fatal to the safety of the conviction so the conviction was quashed, sentence set aside and a retrial ordered despite strong Crown evidence.
12 Dec 1991

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG CHI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG CHI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC352/1991

The trial judge's reasons amounted to a misdirection by suggesting the defendant had to prove his account of withdrawal; that misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe, so the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence and ordered a new trial on a fresh indictment.
11 Jul 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHAN HANG-LEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN HANG-LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA146/1989

The magistrate erred in law by drawing an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to mention the suspected pen theft at the earliest opportunity and thereby misdirected himself; that misdirection was vital and required quashing the conviction and setting aside the sentence.
20 Aug 1987

THE QUEEN v. NG YUK MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG YUK MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/1987

The appeal succeeds because the trial judge committed a vital misdirection in law by drawing an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to mention his alibi at the first opportunity despite caution, and was factually wrong in finding material inconsistencies; given the identification evidence was not overwhelming the proviso did not apply and a retrial was not appropriate, therefore conviction must be quashed.
19 Dec 1985

THE QUEEN v. KWONG CHIU (D1) AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWONG CHIU (D1) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/1985

The appeal of the 2nd Applicant (4th Defendant) is allowed because the trial judge materially misdirected the jury on corroboration of the accomplice's evidence by treating items dependent on the accomplice's testimony as if independently corroborative, a misdirection serious enough to have misled the jury; the summing-up was otherwise terse but not unfair, and the challenges to the 1st and 3rd Applicants' appeals failed because the statutory presumption under s.24 Cap. 238 and the absence of evidential matter in their favour left the jury with little alternative.
2 Jul 1982

LAU MING-LAI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAU MING-LAI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC962/1981

The convictions (for D1 and D4) were unsafe because the trial judge relied on a non-contemporaneous, unsigned notebook record (Exhibit P9) as if it corroborated an accomplice's evidence; that record was inadmissible for corroboration and materially fortified otherwise dangerous accomplice testimony, rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring quashing.
24 May 1972

TEXWOOD (JEANS) GARMENT FACTORY LTD. v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TEXWOOD (JEANS) GARMENT FACTORY LTD. v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC307/1972

Although the magistrate's Statement of Findings contained a misdirection by referring to previous convictions in assessing guilt and certain factual findings (number of women at power machines, that the company did 'nothing') were unsupported, there remained prima facie evidence that the company failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent employees working during the statutory rest period; the misdirection did not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice and the convictions were upheld.