6 Apr 2006
TAM KING HON v. HKSAR
- Citation
- TAM KING HON v. HKSAR
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACC14/2005
The summing up misdirected the jury on how they should deliberate because the board of directors analogy combined with the unqualified 'give and take' and the statement that a four-to-three split 'will not be acceptable' risked pressuring jurors to conform; given this and an additional material misdirection on the standard of proof, the convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered because the proviso under s.83(1) CPO could not properly be applied.