Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lies direction (lucas)

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. OKAFOR JOE K KINGSLEY

Citation

[2020] HKCA 549
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC158/2019

The Court held the evidence that the applicant assumed another identity and possessed an identity card and letter of authorisation was admissible and properly directed as probative of the applicant's knowledge of the parcel's contents rather than merely propensity; no Lucas lies direction was required given the nature of the defence and the judge's directions; the Browne v Dunn requirements were satisfied; the international element was established by shipping documentation and communications and properly considered in sentencing; consequently there were no reasonably arguable grounds and leav…
30 Oct 2015

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC233/2013

The Court held that (1) the judge did not err in admitting the applicant’s statements and evidence from the probate proceedings as 'mixed' statements and admissible background/admissions; (2) the trial judge's directions to the jury, including the two‑stage qualification (Lucas style) on lies and reminders on burden and standard of proof, were adequate and did not render the convictions unsafe; (3) the proposed fresh evidence under s83V was refused as unreliable, late or of limited probative effect and would not afford grounds to allow the appeal; and (4) sentencing was within proper exercise…
7 Aug 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN BOON NING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN BOON NING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC571/2001

No Lucas lies direction was required because the prosecutor's references to lies related to core issues of credibility and were adequately covered by directions on burden and standard of proof; the Ghosh direction did not prejudice the jury because the judge had clearly directed on section 3(1)(a)/(b) (claim of right/consent) and told jurors to acquit if the applicant's account was or might be true; evidence was overwhelming and convictions were therefore upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. OKAFOR JOE K KINGSLEY

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

HKSAR v. CHAN BOON NING