Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of indictment

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN)

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 32
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC26/2018

The convictions were quashed because the indictment and agreed written directions treated particulars (a)–(e) as alternative agreed dishonest means forming essential ingredients of the conspiratorial agreements; the judge gave a Kevin Brown direction on those particulars, but that approach produced a latent duplicity risk that jurors may have convicted different appellants on different conspiracies rolled into single counts, thereby undermining required unanimity; retrial ordered and prosecution permitted to amend or prefer fresh indictment.
20 Apr 2010

HKSAR v. HAU TUNG YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HAU TUNG YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC72/2009

The Court of Appeal held the 1st applicant's interview was admissible and voluntary; although the judge convicted on a broader factual basis than the Crown's opening (treating the thefts as overt acts of a general conspiracy), that departure did not prejudice the defendants because the theft counts were before the court, the defence had opportunity to meet those allegations and the evidence established that bogus consultancy agreements were used to divert company funds and that the applicants acted dishonestly; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed and the sentence appe…
1 Feb 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHU CHO HAM LAWRENCE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHU CHO HAM LAWRENCE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC406/1988

The Court found the trial judge's direction was fundamentally erroneous (notably the use of 'or'), which could have led the jury to convict on an improperly proved basis; because the conviction was thereby unsafe and the proviso could not be applied, the convictions were quashed, sentences set aside and the applicant discharged from bail.
28 Aug 1985

THE QUEEN v. D.2 CHAN WING-KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. D.2 CHAN WING-KWAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/1985

The court held that the confessional statements were voluntary and admissible, the separate voir dires caused no miscarriage, particulars as laid and the manner of adducing evidence were sufficient to support a conviction for dishonest receiving/recent possession, the trial judge did not misdirect on burden of proof, and subsequent conduct could legitimately inform inference of knowledge; accordingly convictions were upheld. However the original sentence of 4.5 years on D.3 was manifestly excessive and was reduced to two years imprisonment.
15 Jun 1979

CHONG SIU-LEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHONG SIU-LEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC802/1978

Although there was a material irregularity in failing to distinguish between items listed in the indictment and items in the agreed statement of facts, the irregularity did not produce a miscarriage of justice because the evidence (identification, proof of theft and possession) and the jury's necessary rejection of the defendants' accounts meant the conviction would properly stand; likewise the sentence appealed was not excessive given the second appellant's antecedents, so leave to appeal was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN)

HKSAR v. HAU TUNG YING AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. CHU CHO HAM LAWRENCE

THE QUEEN v. D.2 CHAN WING-KWAN AND ANOTHER

CHONG SIU-LEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN