Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial and grave injustice

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. HUI LAI KI (許麗琪)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC13/2023

On an appeal under section 113 MO the judge is obliged to re-assess the evidence by way of a rehearing and must reach his or her own conclusion on whether the prosecution has proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the judge need not wait to identify a magistrate's error in the 'plainly wrong' sense before substituting his view, and where the judge fails to conduct a proper rehearing or misapprehends evidence causing substantial and grave injustice the conviction must be quashed.
15 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. TSANG CHEUNG YAN (曾祥欣)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 42
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC31/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show it was reasonably arguable that the murder verdict was inconsistent with co-accused manslaughter verdicts; the evidence demonstrated materially different intentions and roles justifying the respective verdicts, and the fresh evidence would not have changed the outcome and lacked adequate explanation for its late adducing.
8 Nov 2023

HKSAR v. HUI LAI KI (許麗琪)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 35
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC38/2022

Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Judge departed from established sentencing and appellate norms by requiring an identifiable error before intervening on a rehearing and that the applicant's evidence may have been wrongly rejected on the basis of alleged inconsistencies; the Court framed the central question of when a CFI must re‑assess evidence on an appeal under section 113 and when it may overturn a magistrate's conviction on the basis of its own view of the evidence.
20 Apr 2023

HKSAR v. WONG FUNG (王豐)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC10/2023

The court held that no duty arose to direct the jury on unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter because the cautioned statement, when read in its full factual and evidential context (surrender, solicitor evidence, arraignment and consistent defence of provocation), supported only the provocation defence and did not present an obvious alternative on the evidence; therefore failure to direct did not amount to substantial and grave injustice.
11 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. NG FAN YING (吳藩英)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 30
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC22/2021

Leave to appeal was granted because the Court was satisfied it was reasonably arguable that restrictions on cross-examination at trial deprived the applicant of a fair trial and therefore caused a substantial and grave injustice.
17 May 2021

HKSAR v. LO KIN MAN (盧建民)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 17
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC12/2020

Leave to appeal was granted only on discrete legal questions concerning the necessity, nature and proof of a common purpose for riot (Questions 1a–1d), the applicability of joint enterprise in part (Question 2a) and whether guilt can be predicated on mere presence/encouragement (Question 2d), and on one substantial and grave injustice ground (SGI-2 relating to the indictment). All other proposed questions were refused as either case-specific or not reasonably arguable; leave against sentence was dismissed.
29 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG (梁耀強)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 12
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC6/2021

Leave to appeal was granted on the substantial and grave injustice basis because it was reasonably arguable that the majority of the Court of Appeal miscarried in ordering a third retrial for murder; arguments based on the alleged diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder were excluded from the leave grant.
7 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. LO KIN SUN

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 20
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC24/2019

The court granted leave to appeal because it concluded there had been a substantial and grave injustice arising from the conduct of the trial and the treatment of the evidence, such that the defendant was denied a fair trial.
17 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU TAN (陳少丹)

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 14
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC48/2019

Leave to appeal and certification were refused because the trial judge correctly applied the prima facie test at the voir dire and subsequently found authenticity beyond reasonable doubt; disputed points were factual, not points of law of general importance, and no substantial and grave injustice was shown.
16 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. SETO KIN KWAN FRANCO (司徒健群)

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC60/2019

Solicitation under s9(1) is established where an agent solicits an advantage with the intent that it be an inducement or reward for acts or forbearance affecting the principal's affairs; on the facts the applicant solicited and accepted an advantage as an inducement and acted as the company's agent, so leave to appeal was refused.