Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial counsel competence

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2011

HKSAR v. WONG KWAN FUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KWAN FUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC119/2009

The Court held the convictions were safe because the jury could properly accept the accomplice identification and related evidence, the edited letters were lawfully and properly handled under s.65C, the police conduct did not amount to encouraging collusion, and trial counsel acted reasonably and with informed client consent; accordingly the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.
4 Aug 2010

HKSAR v. TSAI YUK YUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. TSAI YUK YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA635/2009

The appellate court found no error in the magistrate's credibility findings: PW1 and PW2 were accepted as honest and credible, multiple inconsistencies and implausibilities in the appellant's account justified rejecting her explanation and inferring intention to appropriate the library documents, and defence counsel's conduct did not render the trial unfair; accordingly the conviction was upheld.
12 Feb 2009

HKSAR v. SUEN WAI LEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. SUEN WAI LEONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC188/2007

The court held the grounds of appeal were without merit: trial counsel's conduct did not amount to incompetence depriving the applicant of a fair trial; the jury directions adequately covered the concept of 'using' a firearm and the requisite intent to resist lawful arrest; the police action could lawfully constitute an arrest by conduct without an explicit verbal declaration; the conviction was supported by the evidence and safe.
8 Jan 2008

HKSAR v. CHAN TO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC221/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the court found no material irregularity: trial counsel was not flagrantly incompetent, the absence of a specific direction that the co-defendant's plea was not evidence against the applicant was not prejudicial in the context, and the combination of identification, ballistic linkage and possession evidence rendered the convictions safe.
21 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC90/2004

The judge's findings that the applicant participated in a joint enterprise, knew or believed the notes were counterfeit and had no lawful excuse are supported by the trial evidence (including admissions in the record of interview) and are unassailable on appeal; the proffered fresh evidence would not alter those findings and counsel conduct complaints do not demonstrate unfair trial, therefore leave to adduce further evidence is refused and leave to appeal is dismissed.
18 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WO

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA264/1999

The court upheld the magistrate's findings that the prosecution expert's identification was reliable, that the appellant failed to prove the statutory defence under section 26 on the balance of probabilities, that trial counsel's choices were tactical and not flagrantly incompetent, and that the post‑trial affirmations did not qualify as admissible new evidence; accordingly conviction was maintained but sentence was varied to a suspended custodial sentence with a substantial fine as appropriate deterrent for repeat offending.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. WONG KWAN FUK AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. TSAI YUK YUEN

HKSAR v. SUEN WAI LEONG

HKSAR v. CHAN TO

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WO