Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Proviso to s.83 cpo

  • 13 Feb 2009

    HKSAR v. MD ARIF HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MD ARIF HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC177/2008

    The convictions for charges 1 (robbery), 2 (wounding with intent) and 4 (indecent assault) were quashed because the trial judge impermissibly relied on the applicants' silence after arrest and caution as a central element in rejecting the defence, contrary to the principle in Lee Fuk Hing; the immigration conviction (charge 3 under s.38(1)(b) Cap 115) was upheld by applying the proviso to s.83 CPO because independent evidence (movement records pattern, possession of forged Immigration document, timing and character of lost‑passport report) established unlawful landing and remaining despite co…

  • 6 Nov 2006

    CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

    Citation
    CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC5/2006

    The trial judge's directions on how jurors should deliberate were materially misdirected because the board analogy and use of 'give and take' and 'collectively' produced a contradictory amalgam apt to confuse jurors and risk subordination of honest views; as a result the convictions could not be sustained and were quashed; the proviso to s.83 CPO did not apply because it could not be said a properly instructed reasonable jury would inevitably have convicted; retrial of the 1st appellant ordered, bail granted, and costs refused.

  • 6 Nov 2006

    CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

    Citation
    CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC6/2006

    The trial judge's directions on how jurors should deliberate were materially flawed (use of board of directors analogy, 'give and take', 'collectively') and produced a contradictory amalgam apt to confuse the jury; therefore the jury was misdirected, convictions were quashed, the proviso to s.83 CPO was not applied because it could not be said a properly instructed jury would inevitably convict, and a retrial for the 1st appellant on specified false accounting counts was ordered with bail pending retrial.

  • 7 Oct 1999

    HKSAR v. FONG CHONG PUN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. FONG CHONG PUN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC528/1998

    The Court held the convictions were safe because the cumulative circumstantial and forensic evidence (keys/pager, unique parcel markings on tickets, cloth samples physically matched and bearing D3's thumbprint, fibres linking D3's jacket to the lorry, identifications and other links) justified inferences of control/possession and of knowledge or belief the goods were stolen; D2's counsel's failure to adduce good character did not produce a miscarriage of justice given the strength of the case; sentencing was not manifestly excessive and the trial judge properly applied the totality principle…