Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of abandonment

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. CHIM CHOI LAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIM CHOI LAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC425/2012

Applicant knowingly and deliberately filed the Notice of Abandonment (she acknowledged writing that she 'cancel my appeal' and accepted responsibility), so the abandonment is not a nullity; the judge correctly applied sentencing guidelines and the sentence of 7 years 9 months was appropriate and not manifestly excessive; new mitigation raised for the first time on this appeal is impermissibly late and does not justify reduction.
31 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. CHAN KA-WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA-WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC44/2016

The Court held that the forfeiture order formed part of the sentence under s80 CPO; the District Court judge had received and rejected the applicant's evidence and had a valid evidential basis to forfeit the cash and all three phones on the balance of probabilities and to decline to separate or order return of contact-directory data; accordingly the application to treat the Notice of Abandonment as a nullity was refused and the forfeiture order stands.
26 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. MAEDA HISATO

Citation

HKSAR v. MAEDA HISATO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC367/2014

Applicant's Notice of Abandonment was executed under a mistake of fact about the need for legal representation such that his mind did not go with the act; mistake of fact can ground nullity under the Medway test; therefore the abandonment was treated as a nullity and the application for leave to appeal was adjourned for hearing with directions for the appeal bundle and written submissions.
19 May 2016

HKSAR v. ZUNINI DE LA CRUZ JORGE DANIEL

Citation

HKSAR v. ZUNINI DE LA CRUZ JORGE DANIEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2010

The Court treated the earlier abandonment as a nullity due to the applicant's misunderstanding and language/translation concerns but refused leave to appeal because the judge's summing-up was fair, the directions on burden and standard of proof were correct, and the circumstantial evidence (false name/document, receipt and possession of a parcel containing a large quantity of cocaine at an address where the applicant did not reside) gave the jury a proper case to resolve; therefore the conviction was not shown to be unsafe.
13 Jan 2014

HKSAR v. KAMARULZAMAN BIN ANNUAR

Citation

HKSAR v. KAMARULZAMAN BIN ANNUAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2013

The Court refused to admit the late medical report because it would not afford a ground of appeal under s83V; it upheld the sentencing judge's starting points and concurrent structure as proportionate given the large quantities, enormous face value, international dimension and potential for substantial loss, and therefore found the total 3 year sentence not manifestly excessive; the Court ordered a loss of time of four weeks under s83W because the applicant's application was totally unmeritorious and had wasted judicial time.
8 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. HUNG WAI YIP AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HUNG WAI YIP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC51/2011

The Court held the 1st applicant failed to prove his Notice of Abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act; the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to require a jury to answer Count 3; counsel's conduct did not amount to flagrant incompetence as tactical decisions were professionally justified and the co-defendant's out-of-court statements were inadmissible hearsay where the co-defendant was compellable; the voir dire witness tendered by the 2nd applicant related only to collateral credit and was properly excluded; accordingly both applicants' applications for leave to appeal were di…
11 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. HON CHEUNG MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. HON CHEUNG MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC112/2007

The Notice of Abandonment was valid because the applicant clearly understood that he was withdrawing the appeal and his misapprehension about legal aid does not render the abandonment a nullity.
10 May 2007

HKSAR v. YU CHAK LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. YU CHAK LAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC37/2006

The court held that the applicant's notice of abandonment was a deliberate and solemn act and not a nullity; there was no fundamental mistake justifying treating it as void, and on sentencing the total term of five years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive despite some reservations about the judge's approach to concurrency and consecutivity, therefore the application was dismissed.
3 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR

Citation

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1017/2004

The judge refused to certify a point of law of great and general importance because the appellant failed the nullity test for the Notice of Abandonment; accordingly the application for a certificate under s.32 was refused and there was no basis to reopen the appeal.
20 May 2003

HKSAR v. LO TAK CHEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LO TAK CHEONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC530/2000

The abandonment was a deliberate and informed decision made on counsel's advice; the applicant's later dissatisfaction and comparison with other cases did not demonstrate the abandonment was null; accordingly the application to treat the abandonment as a nullity is dismissed and, as the application was devoid of merit, three months of remand time is ordered not to count under s.83W Cap.221.