Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summing up to jury

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. ALAM WASEEN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 513
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC253/2017

The appellate court found the judge's summing up addressed issues properly raised by the competing cases, applied standard directions on circumstantial evidence, did not mislead or unduly invite speculation, and adequately reminded the jury they were sole judges of fact; no misdirection or prejudice was shown and the conviction was therefore safe; leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
31 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN SAI SUET

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SAI SUET
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC322/2015

The voir dire was properly conducted and the judge correctly found the interview voluntary and admissible; the summing up properly and fairly directed the jury on the admissions and other issues; the late witness statements did not justify legal aid or adjournment; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave to appeal and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
25 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. POSSO VERGARA CRISTHIAN ENRIQUE

Citation

HKSAR v. POSSO VERGARA CRISTHIAN ENRIQUE<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC538/2011

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the prosecution evidence was overwhelming (drugs in a safe at the applicant's residence, applicant had key and provided password, and admissions consistent with legal advice), there was no satisfactory evidence of inducement or planting of drugs, alleged counsel failings were tactical and not incompetent, and no material misdirection by the judge was demonstrated.
14 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. JITSATTA CHOSITA

Citation

HKSAR v. JITSATTA CHOSITA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC443/2011

The conviction was set aside because the trial judge’s summing up, in relation to the critical issue of the applicant’s credibility, was unbalanced: he emphasised prosecution pointers without adequately summarising central defence explanations, producing a real possibility of prejudice to the verdict; accordingly a miscarriage of justice was established and a retrial was ordered.
12 Mar 1998

HKSAR v. TSANG CHI LING

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG CHI LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC670/1997

The Court held that the evidence of the earlier raid (scale and resealable bags, and absence of drug‑taking apparatus) was relevant and probative to the central issue of trafficking versus personal consumption, that destruction of the items did not render the evidence inadmissible where the applicant accepted the police findings, and that the trial judge fairly summed up the evidence to the jury; accordingly the application to appeal against conviction had no merit and was dismissed.
28 Jan 1997

R. v. TANG SIU-MAN

Citation

R. v. TANG SIU-MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC432/1996

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the summing up was clear, accurate and fair, material contradictions in the police constable's evidence were addressed by the judge and effectively exploited in cross-examination, and no miscarriage of justice was shown.
3 May 1995

R. v. LU XIAO MING

Citation

R. v. LU XIAO MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC539/1994

The conviction and sentence were upheld because the summing-up contained no misdirection or non-direction and the evidence allowed only the reasonable inference that the applicant knew of the drugs, making the conviction for trafficking and the 22-year sentence appropriate.
27 Nov 1986

THE QUEEN v. WOO PING YUE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WOO PING YUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC364/1986

The summing up was proper and the determination whether provocation reduced the offence to manslaughter was a matter for the jury; on the evidence the jury were entitled to convict of murder, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
8 Aug 1985

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI-YUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI-YUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC550/1984

When a co-defendant gives evidence implicating another co-defendant the decision whether and how to warn the jury about reliance on that evidence is a matter of judicial discretion; the trial judge did not misapply the law in declining to give the 'full treatment' and the summing up, though terse, was not so defective as to render the convictions unsafe.