Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury directions/misdirection

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2023

HKSAR v. KHAW KIM SUN (許金山)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 37
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2023

The trial judge's directions treating the absence of the stopper as a basis to eliminate the daughter were erroneous because there was no evidential foundation to infer the stopper was missing at the time of the incident given the lapse of time and handling of the boot; that misdirection risked impermissible cumulative inferences and deprived the appellant of a fair trial. The proviso could not be applied because a hypothetical reasonable jury properly instructed would not inevitably convict; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
15 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. LAU KIN HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KIN HANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC357/1997

The judge's direction that 'substantial' impairment required a finding in 'popular everyday terms' that the accused was 'partially insane' or 'on the borderline of insanity' was a material misdirection; such a popular-language test unduly narrows the statutory concept of diminished responsibility and should not be given. The misdirection warranted allowing the appeal, quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.
22 Feb 1994

THE QUEEN v. WONG KWOK KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KWOK KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC345/1992

The summing-up contained a material misdirection by implying or creating an onus on the defendant to disprove knowledge of the contents of a locked tool-box; given the factual distinction (locked box, absence of key) and the absence of reliance on the statutory presumption, the inference of possession equating to knowledge was unsafe and the conviction had to be quashed.
25 Feb 1987

THE QUEEN v. LO PUN MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LO PUN MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC320/1986

The trial judge's directions were legally adequate: "inherent causes" are ordinary words for the jury to interpret and the judge did not withdraw environmental evidence from the jury; there was no misdirection in excluding effects of drugs/withdrawal because the evidence did not establish a craving sufficient to produce an abnormality of mind; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and convictions and sentences upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KHAW KIM SUN (許金山)

HKSAR v. LAU KIN HANG

THE QUEEN v. WONG KWOK KEUNG

THE QUEEN v. LO PUN MAN