Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to counsel

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴何振權

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1703
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA73/2020

The court found the appellant's allegations of being misled vague and unsupported, noted he refused duty counsel after a proper warning by the magistrate, concluded the plea was voluntary and informed, and held that the sentencing guideline mandates imprisonment (reduced to 15 months for plea) absent sufficient humanitarian reasons; the appellant's family circumstances were insufficient, therefore conviction and sentence are upheld.
28 Oct 2016

MR DAVID PERRY QC

Citation

MR DAVID PERRY QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2231/2016

Application refused because the points of law for which certification and admission were sought do not arise on the facts (magistrate found controlling director had full knowledge and acted as directing mind), their resolution is unlikely to substantially develop Hong Kong jurisprudence given existing authorities, and the public interest in protecting the local Bar and competence of local counsel outweighs the applicants' claim to counsel of choice.
30 Sept 2015

香港特別行政區訴李銘芳

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李銘芳
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA119/2013

The judge found on the whole of the evidence and transcript that the appellant's pleas were made voluntarily and with understanding after repeated explanations and opportunities to obtain counsel; refusal to adjourn was justified because ample time had previously been given; therefore the pleas were valid and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
11 Apr 2014

香港特別行政區訴曹建成

Citation

香港特別行政區訴曹建成
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC284/2013

The court refused the certificate because the matter was decided on the special facts of the case: an unrepresented accused who consented to agreed facts without being advised of his rights and the consequences cannot be treated as having 'called witnesses' or other evidence so as to permit the prosecution to make a closing speech; the issue was not shown to be of general or great importance or to give rise to conflicting authority.
14 Mar 2014

律政司司長訴曹建成

Citation

律政司司長訴曹建成
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/2013

The convictions were unsafe because serious procedural irregularities occurred: the prosecution improperly made a reply/closing speech when the defendant was unrepresented (violating entrenched procedural principle); the judge failed to conduct a necessary voir dire on voluntariness of the police interview when allegations of police violence were raised; the judge did not adequately assist the unrepresented defendant to respond to the prosecution's submissions; and the jury directions on DNA evidence were incomplete. Cumulatively these defects rendered the trial unfair and the convictions wer…
28 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. WONG KOK SUM SAMMY

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KOK SUM SAMMY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC367/2012

The Court held that the trial judge’s summing‑up was fair and balanced despite the challenged emphasis and structure; the judge properly exercised discretion in excluding the post‑record but admitting the oral admissions after finding them voluntary; the defence was not unfairly prejudiced and the grounds of appeal lacked merit, so leave to appeal was refused.
3 Jan 2012

HKSAR v. CHAN PAK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PAK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA808/2010

The VRI was properly admitted because the magistrate's credibility findings that the appellant voluntarily withdrew his request for a lawyer were open to him, there was no deliberate denial or improper delay by police, the miscommunication about the lawyer's arrival was not malice, and therefore the residual discretion to exclude the VRI was not engaged; admissions in the VRI supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
30 Apr 2004

HKSAR v. YEUNG AH LUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG AH LUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC506/2003

D1: The theft that produced the stolen status of the goods was a relevant event occurring in Hong Kong and therefore the handling offence as charged was within the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance; D2: the amended particulars of the s25 offence expressly alleged dealing in Mainland China so the actus reus occurred outside Hong Kong and the charge as particularized was not justiciable here; further, even if jurisdiction had been arguable, D2's first statement should have been excluded because police conduct effectively denied access to counsel undermining an infor…
11 Jun 1999

HKSAR v. YIK KAM HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIK KAM HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC8/1999

The trial judge's factual findings that the record of interview was voluntary and that the applicant participated in the theft and resisted arrest were supported by ample evidence (police testimony, bank records, admissions); therefore the convictions were justified and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
28 May 1998

HKSAR v. Abenir Noel R.

Citation

HKSAR v. Abenir Noel R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA132/1998

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly exercised his discretion not to adjourn, the appellant had ample prior opportunity to obtain representation and had caused delay by absconding, and the magistrate's assistance to an unrepresented appellant was adequate and did not render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe.