Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial and grave injustice test

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2019

HKSAR v. CHU FRANKLY

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC56/2018

Leave to appeal dismissed: the Judge properly conducted a rehearing and formed his own conclusions; the correct legal test is provided by the statutory scheme in the Public Order Ordinance and not the Northern Irish adaptation; the applicant lacked an honest and reasonable belief that the force was necessary so the statutory protection did not apply; re‑evaluation would amount to an impermissible retrial and there was no arguable legal point on sentence.
15 Sept 2010

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC26/2010

Leave to appeal was granted selectively because each applicant identified arguable grounds that raised either a point of law under s.32(2) or a real prospect of substantial and grave injustice warranting appellate consideration; the Court did not decide the merits but allowed the issues to be ventilated at full appeal.
10 Dec 2007

YEUNG CHI KEUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

YEUNG CHI KEUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC50/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the expert report was properly admitted and provided a reasonable basis for the judge's inference that the quantity represented over 50 daily doses, the judge was entitled to take judicial notice that discotheques are commonly associated with drug sale or use (supported by agreed facts about Disco 348), and therefore the applicant failed to show any substantial and grave injustice.
19 Apr 2007

HKSAR v. OU KA CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. OU KA CHI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC63/2006

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Recorder's directions, viewed in context, were adequate and did not create a realistic danger that the jury would wrongly reject the applicant's evidence; the internal report was properly in evidence because the applicant adduced it; alleged misdirections about the purpose of misappropriated funds and prior frauds of PW4 did not cause prejudice; the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable and did not demonstrate substantial and grave injustice.
30 Apr 2004

ROGERIO LAM SOU FUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

ROGERIO LAM SOU FUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC12/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because there was admissible evidence (notably the testimony of Joshua Cheung) upon which the trial judge and Court of Appeal could properly find the applicant knew the guarantee was false, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any departure from accepted norms or a substantial and grave injustice under s.32(2).
11 May 2001

HKSAR v. HA CHI MING SUMMER

Citation

HKSAR v. HA CHI MING SUMMER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA5/2001

Because the prosecution failed to disclose bank statements and withdrawal slips that could have supported the appellant's account and affected the magistrate's assessment of his credibility, the nondisclosure left doubt as to whether a substantial and grave injustice had occurred; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.
14 Dec 1999

SO YIU FUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

SO YIU FUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/1999

The Court held that leave under s.32(2) requires demonstration of a departure from accepted norms constituting substantial and grave injustice and is not a licence for the Court to act as a second court of criminal appeal; applying that test the appellant failed to show any such serious departure—identification evidence was adequate and properly warned, alleged alibi and summing‑up omissions were not materially prejudicial, fingerprint non‑disclosure was not material, and omission of an old‑charges direction was unnecessary—therefore convictions and sentence were upheld and the appeal dismiss…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHU FRANKLY

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

YEUNG CHI KEUNG v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. OU KA CHI

ROGERIO LAM SOU FUNG v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. HA CHI MING SUMMER

SO YIU FUNG v. HKSAR