Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voir dire

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

HKSAR v. LAM WAI KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 988
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/2024

The judge's factual findings on the voir dire and the adequacy of his summing-up were not shown to be plainly wrong; the contested admissions and Exhibit P78 were properly admitted and left to the jury for weight; the grounds of appeal against conviction were not reasonably arguable and leave is refused; however, leave to appeal against sentence is granted out of time because the revised sentencing guidelines apply to the large quantity of cocaine involved and leave to appeal sentence is therefore permitted, with legal aid granted to D1.
7 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. LEUNG KIT HING DORIS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5731
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA44/2024

The application for a s32 certificate was refused because the proposed points were re-argued factual or procedural issues that had been dealt with at trial and on appeal and did not amount to points of law of great and general importance; the Applicant had access to and used prosecution materials, and no novel legal question suitable for certification was established.
19 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHAN HO KWAI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 86
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/2021

The admitted statements and video-recorded interview together with the evidence at trial were sufficient for a jury to convict on the knowledge element; the procedural complaints (non-calling of PW2, absence of a lies direction, presence of PW3, and the adjournment) caused no demonstrable prejudice and did not render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
11 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. YIP WING FAT

Citation

[2024] HKCA 21
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC85/2019

The court refused the out‑of‑time renewal because the six newly advanced grounds were patently devoid of merit and not reasonably arguable; the earlier voir dire determination on voluntariness remained operative, the judge’s case‑management remarks did not amount to improper pressure or prejudice, the jury were adequately directed about the alleged assault, and the applicant’s long absence and late strategy justified a two‑month loss of time order to deter abuse of appellate resources.
17 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. CHAN HO-KWAI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 95
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/2021

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the asserted errors were either unfounded or not reasonably arguable: the judge gave adequate directions focusing on knowledge not suspicion, a lies direction was unnecessary, inconsistencies were properly dealt with and were matters for assessment by the jury, the contested evidential and procedural matters lacked substance, and no material irregularity or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.
8 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ-WAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC391/2019

Defence failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a fair trial is impossible; DPC 11707 had a minor role, other witnesses can give evidence on key matters, the voluntariness of admissions will be decided by a judge in a voir dire with the prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution took reasonable steps to locate the DPC with no evidence of bad faith; accordingly the application for a permanent stay is dismissed.
18 May 2022

HKSAR v. FUNG SIU LUNG JOE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 668
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC73/2021

The judge correctly treated the weight discrepancies and alleged tampering as factual matters for the jury rather than grounds for a voir dire on admissibility of the exhibits; the voir dire on the voluntariness of admissions was properly conducted and the admissions were rightly admitted; the judge properly rejected the no case submission because credibility and chain of custody issues were matters for the jury; the summing-up adequately addressed burden, admissions and weight discrepancy issues; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
29 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. TOE ELI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1588
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC120/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge, having viewed the video‑recorded interview, reasonably found the applicant had a good command of English and was not coached; that finding justified admitting the post‑recorded statement and interview and meant there was no demonstrated breach of BOR 11(2)(a) or BOR 22, no material unfairness, and no error in the judge's credibility assessments or application of Browne v Dunn.
17 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN TAT (陳敏達)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC43/2020

The trial judge validly excluded the defence expert for lack of appropriate expertise on the principal issue; the admitted physical and expert evidence overwhelmingly established the collision occurred in the motorcyclist's lane, so the Court of Appeal correctly applied the proviso and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 Dec 2020

HKSAR v, TSUI CHI WAI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1007
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/2017

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to give a Mushtaq direction on a contested verbal admission where voluntariness was plainly in issue; that failure, compounded by counsel errors at pre‑trial and pre‑summing stages, undermined the safety of the convictions and required quashing and a retrial.