Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to a fair trial

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2025

香港特別行政區訴吳霆鋒

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2451
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA383/2023

The appeal is allowed because the WhatsApp materials (P4–P9) were obtained and ultimately used at trial in circumstances where their admissibility and the timing of disclosure were seriously in doubt; the late disclosure and reliance on those materials materially affected the appellant's ability to give evidence and obtain legal advice and rendered the convictions unsafe. Accordingly the convictions are quashed and the sentence is stayed.
5 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN KIT BRANDON

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC19/2017

The Court granted leave to appeal on the certified legal questions concerning the scope and interpretation of s19(2) and its compatibility with the right to a fair trial, while refusing leave on the separate ground of substantial and grave injustice; the Court did not decide the substantive issues on the merits at this stage.
28 Apr 2015

WML v. LCK

Citation

WML v. LCK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3011/2014

The costs nisi order was not varied because the appeal was allowed primarily due to the husband not receiving a fair trial, which was not the wife's fault, and because the wife's leave application was brief and did not materially increase the costs of the appeal; therefore no order as to costs was appropriate.
29 Jul 2013

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/2013

The summonses for hearing the Disclosure Appeals in camera were dismissed: the public interest in open administration of justice and prosecutorial transparency outweighs the applicants' claims; there was no suggestion of bias or impropriety by Ng J and no sufficient basis to depart from open justice in the Disclosure Appeals.
2 Jun 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 application for certification is dismissed because the prosecution consistently advanced a case that encompassed the matters relied on by the judge, the applicants were aware of that case and had the opportunity to answer, no prejudice was caused, and therefore the posed question of law does not arise as a matter of general importance eligible for certification.
26 Mar 2009

CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2008

Appeals dismissed: the Court held on the evidence the appellants were not deprived of a fair trial. Trial counsel's advice not to give evidence was a reasonable exercise of judgment in the face of inadequate instructions and the implausibility of the claim of right; any error did not amount to negligence nor would it have altered the inevitable guilty outcome. The 2nd appellant had separate representation and no meritorious complaint.
15 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. YEE HING CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YEE HING CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC287/2005

The convictions were upheld because the trial judge permissibly accepted PW3's identification and the finding that the applicant was 'Wong' was supported by corroborative evidence (same telephone number used to set up the company, use of false name/ID on the lease, applicant's fingerprints on employment forms found with a co-conspirator and his presence at the premises); inconsistencies and absence of prints on the lease were peripheral and did not render the convictions unsafe.
2 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. LAM KWONG WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KWONG WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC213/2003

The court certified the first question as appropriately framed for the Court of Final Appeal because it raises whether the statutory provisions are consistent with presumption of innocence and fair trial rights; the court refused the second question as it was misconceived—validity of a limitation is a legal question unsuitably framed in terms of a burden of proof and international tests of justification transcend traditional criminal burdens of proof and should be canvassed under the certified question.
28 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN YIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA693/2002

Convictions were unsafe because the magistrate improperly permitted the interpreter to give conflicting and inadequate legal directions to the unrepresented 1st appellant instead of personally informing him, thereby undermining the fairness and appearance of justice; appeal allowed and convictions set aside with no retrial.
24 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. CHIM PUI CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIM PUI CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC402/1998

The Court refused to certify either point because (1) the prosecution provided sufficient particularity throughout the trial such that no general legal principle requiring a different practice was established and (2) the statutory mens rea in s71 is expressed in clear terms and did not require additional directions about 'contemplation'; thus no point of law of great and general importance arose from this decision.