Court of Final Appeal – Final Appeal

HKSAR v Chen Keen (alias Jack Chen) and Ors (2023) 26 HKCFAR 157 – interpretation of section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance in the context of a complex commercial fraud retrial where the jury was discharged on day 61 of the retrial (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

SJ v Leung Kwok Hung (2021) 24 HKCFAR 234 – delineation of the ambit and application of “contempt” under section 17(c) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as co-lead advocate)

HKSAR v Lai Kam Fat (2019) 22 HKCFAR 289 – clarification of the element of offence with respect to knowledge of drug type in the offence of conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Chan Shui Lun (2019) 22 HKCFAR 45 – respect for the defendant’s right to be heard before making costs order against him (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Leung Chun Kit Brandon (2018) 21 HKCFAR 298 – breach of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance by providing personal data of a person to an insurance agent without the person’s consent – clarification of the law on the prosecutor’s entitlement to make a closing speech in different scenarios (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Special View Ltd (2018) 21 HKCFAR 562 – clarification of the validity of a cancelled AFCD licence after its original expiry date but when the appeal against the cancellation was still pending (Appearing for the appellant as lead advocate; also as lead advocate in seeking leave to appeal)

HKSAR v Lam Tan Ching Paul (2018) 21 HKCFAR 1 – proper construction of “accompanied personal baggage” in the Import and Export (General) Regulations (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Cheung Wai Kwong (2017) 20 HKCFAR 254 – meaning of “use”, “drive” and “in charge of” in the context of vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Appearing for the appellant as lead advocate; also as lead advocate in seeking leave to appeal)

HKSAR v Ma Kwok Fai (2014) 17 HKCFAR 1 – proper directions to the jury where a single assault consisting of multiple blows was involved in a murder case (Appearing for the appellant as co-counsel; also as co-counsel in seeking leave to appeal)

The Jockey Club Kau Sai Chau Public Golf Course Ltd v HKSAR (2013) 16 HKCFAR 908 – definitions of “road” and “motor vehicle” in the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

A v The Commissioner of the ICAC (2012) 15 HKCFAR 362 – whether a person served with a section 14 notice of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance could lawfully invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to justify refusing to comply with the notice (Appearing for the respondent; led by Clare Montgomery QC and as co-counsel)

Hin Lin Yee and Anor v HKSAR (2010) 13 HKCFAR 142 – one of the leading authorities on the principles in determining the mental element of criminal offences (Appearing for the respondent; led by Kevin Zervos, SC, then DDPP)

Wong Hon Sun v HKSAR (2009) 12 HKCFAR 877 – clarification of the nature of and burden and standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings where cargo owner seeks the return of unmanifested cargo (Appearing for the respondent as co-counsel)

Z v HKSAR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 183 – one of the leading authorities in determining the sentencing discounts for the defendant’s provision of assistance to authorities (Appearing for the respondent; led by Grenville Cross, SC, then DPP)

HKSAR v Wong Sau Ming (2003) 6 HKCFAR 135 – setting the law on the circumstances under which cross-examination of a police witness who testified in another case which resulted in acquittal would be allowed thus creating a further exception to the finality rule (Appearing for the respondent; led by John Reading, SC, then DDPP)

HKSAR v Li Li Mua (2001) 4 HKCFAR 123 – clarification of the time limit in initiating a prosecution where the offence in question was a continuing offence in the context of Immigration Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as co-counsel)

Court of Final Appeal – Leave Application

HKSAR v Chen Keen and Anor (2022) 25 HKCFAR 34 – whether the Court of Final Appeal had jurisdiction to hear appeal against refusal to stay proceedings (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Chan Chi Tao [2019] HKCFA 49 – an indecent assault case where the assault took place over 21 years ago and grave and substantial injustice was alleged in that the applicant claimed that he could not properly and adequately defend the case because of the long lapse of time, that a permanent stay should have been granted, that evidence of uncharged act was erroneously admitted, that the lack of sufficient particulars infringed the rule against duplicity and that the complainant was erroneously found to be reliable (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar [2018] HKCFA 26 – elements of offence in money laundering (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Lam Mei Ngar FAMC 8/2015 – a fraud and money laundering case alleging procedural irregularities in handling jury and inconsistent verdicts of the jury (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Wong Kam Keung (2015) 18 HKCFAR 98 – law concerning cross-examination of undercover police witness in a triad case who testified in other cases of the same undercover operation which resulted in acquittals and on the distinction between cross-examination as to credit and the admission of evidence to rebut a witness’ denial (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Li Fung Ching Catherine FAMC 4/2012 – a case of non-payment of wages in contravention of the Employment Ordinance where the director allegedly voted against deferring payment of wages and therefore whether the non-payment was under the “consent”, “connivance” or “attributable to any neglect” of the director (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Yam Chim Kwan FAMC 57/2012 – a money laundering case (Appearing for the respondent as co-counsel)

Lee Chi Hang v HKSAR FAMC 39/2010 – a trafficking in dangerous drug case (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

Ho Sau Mun and Anor v HKSAR FAMC 9/2003 – a case of failing to comply with notice to discontinue unauthorized development contrary to section 23(6) of the Town Planning Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as co-counsel)

Yip Bun Keung v HKSAR FAMC 3/2001 – a case of breach of licensing condition contrary to section 46(1) of the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as co-counsel)

Court of Appeal – Civil Appeal 

CITIC Pacific Ltd v SJ and Anor [2015] 4 HKLRD 20 – proper approach to the definition of a “client” for the purpose of legal advice privilege, the adoption in Hong Kong of the dominant purpose test as expounded by Tomlinson J in Three Rivers (No 5) which would set the proper limit for legal advice privilege as guaranteed under Article 35 of the Basic Law and the Court of Appeal’s guidance on the procedure for more effective disposal of claims of legal professional privilege (Appearing for the defendants; led by Charlotte Draycott SC)

Kwan Pearl Sun Chu v DoJ CACV 314/2005 – an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review where the applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the DoJ to reverse its decision and its advice to the police not to prosecute her alleged assailant (appeal stage); when the appeal was dismissed, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA leave stage) (Appearing for the respondent; led by Grenville Cross, SC, then DPP and Darryl Saw, SC, then DDPP at the appeal stage; also as the sole advocate at the CFA leave stage)

Court of Appeal – Review of Sentence

SJ v Chu Wing Yin Christine [2020] 1 HKLRD 771 – proper sentencing approach in the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm (Appearing for the appellant as lead advocate)

SJ v Cheung King Kong [2020] 3 HKLRD 837 – proper sentencing approach in the offence of cultivation of cannabis plants (Appearing for the appellant as lead advocate)

SJ v Siu Yun Yee [2017] 3 HKLRD 678 – a money laundering case with clarifications on the relevance of the seriousness of the predicate offence, the propriety of imposing a suspended sentence and whether a discount in sentence should be afforded in a sentence review (Appearing for the appellant as sole advocate)

SJ v Man Kwong Choi & Anor [2008] 5 HKLRD 519 – new sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography (Appearing for the appellant; led by Grenville Cross, SC, then DPP)

SJ v Wong Kwok Kau [2004] 3 HKLRD 208 – applicability of section 83V(5) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which prohibits increase of sentence based on fresh evidence, on new materials which negated a mitigating factor that deceived the sentencing judge into granting a discount in the original sentence (Appearing for the appellant; led by Grenville Cross, SC, then DPP)

Court of Appeal – Appeal against Conviction and/or Sentence

HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi & Anor [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 – two consolidated sentence appeals lodged by the convicted appellants in which the respondent invited the Court of Appeal, which accepted, to revise the sentencing guidelines for trafficking in cannabis laid down in AG v Tuen Shui Ming & Anor [1995] 2 HKC 798 and to set down the sentencing approach and guidelines for cultivation of cannabis plants (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Fung Ka Chun & Anor and HKSAR v Chan Pau Chi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1265 – two appeals heard together concerning the scope of the offence of living on earnings of prostitution of another, contrary to section 137(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, the constitutionality of section 137(1) and what constituted “earnings of prostitution of another”; the appellants provided or facilitated an adult website through which male members were brought into contact with female members who offered sexual services (Appearing for the respondent as co-lead advocate)

HKSAR v Lam See Chung Stephen [2022] 5 HKLRD 118 – three appeals heard together concerning numerous fraud and related offences where the Court of Appeal considered the propriety of having the sentencing of the three cases heard by the same judge but at different times in an effort to address the jurisdictional limit of the sentencing court (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate) 

HKSAR v Wahaj Fyaz [2022] HKCA 316 – an appeal against conviction of murder alleging errors in the trial judge’s directions on inferential reasoning and expert evidence and in admitting inadmissible and highly prejudicial evidence (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate) 

HKSAR v Chen Keen & Ors [2022] 4 HKLRD 219 – appeal against order for costs of retrial granted under section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance upon discharge of jury when new jury was intended to be empaneled (Appearing for the appellant as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Lam Kai Man [2020] 4 HKLRD 107 – considerations of and proper sentencing discount for a guilty plea to lesser offence which was rejected by the prosecution but of which the defendant was ultimately convicted; this case supplements HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1, the leading authority on sentencing discounts for guilty pleas (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Chan Yee Lap [2019] 5 HKLRD 181 – a conspiracy to defraud case in which the Court of Appeal discussed the propriety of reducing the sentencing discount for the appellant’s guilty pleas as he had absconded when the case was adjourned for mention but the appellant was apprehended subsequently (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Fok Ka Po, Joe and Ors [2018] 2 HKLRD 1223 & [2019] 2 HKLRD 1 – a case of conspiracy to throw corrosive fluid with intent to burn in which it was alleged that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the standard of proof by saying ‘“sure” did not mean 100 per cent sure’ and that the trial judge had intervened to the extent that the proceedings were not fair and impartial (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Chung Ka Wai [2018] 2 HKLRD 1080, [2018] 2 HKLRD 1090 – clarification of the burden of proof in respect of “without lawful authority and reasonable excuse” in the offence of possession of an identity card relating to another without lawful authority and reasonable excuse (Appearing for the respondent as lead advocate)

HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar [2017] 5 HKLRD 326 – elements of offence in money laundering (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Tse Man Lai [2013] 3 HKLRD 691 – a case of obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another, contrary to section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, in which the Court of Appeal held that a person was to be regarded as obtaining access to a computer in respect of each separate discrete use of the computer i.e. each one of multiple occasions during one single session of use of computer on which a person obtained access to a computer was to be regarded as obtaining access to a computer for the purpose of the section (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Ou Jiejing [2013] 2 HKLRD 258 – a case of money laundering in which one of the appeal grounds related to the non-disclosure of related restraint proceedings (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Yam Chim Kwan [2013] 1 HKLRD 1034 – a case of money laundering in which insufficient evidence on mens rea and improper rejection of defence evidence were alleged (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Lam Koon Wah Francis CACC 409/2011 – a rare case under section 40 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance: aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring the commission in a place outside Hong Kong of an offence punishable under a corresponding law in force in that place namely, manufacturing of dangerous drug, with an alternative count of misconduct in public office as the applicant was a police officer (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate; also as prosecuting counsel at trial in the District Court (DCCC 101/2011))

HKSAR v Cheung Tak Shing Ronald CACC 468/2010 – 11 counts of agent accepting an advantage, contrary to section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance where grounds of appeal included trial judge’s failure to adequately assess and/or reconcile evidential discrepancies between prosecution witness and accomplice witness, warn himself of the danger of relying on the evidence of the accomplice witness who was giving evidence under immunity and give reasons for rejecting the applicant’s evidence (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate; also as prosecuting counsel at trial in the District Court (DCCC 314/2010))

HKSAR v Kwan Chi Wing CACC 201/2008 – a rape case where the grounds of appeal concerned the lies direction given, failure to give the Liberato direction and the “Reckless” direction given (Appearing for the respondent; led by Robert Lee SC; also as prosecuting counsel at trial in the Court of First Instance (HCCC 1/2008))

Court of First Instance – Judicial Review

Chan Hau Man Christina v Commissioner of Police [2009] 4 HKLRD 797 – during the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay in Hong Kong, the police decided to take the applicant and her group away against their wishes in order to prevent a breach of the peace when their demonstration was met with hostile reactions from those who turned up in the streets to witness the torch relay; the applicant applied for judicial review to challenge the police’s decision based on Articles 27, 28 and 31 of the Basic Law and Articles 5, 8, 16, 17 and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, assembly, demonstration and movement and from arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment) (Appearing for the respondent; led by Gerard McCoy, SC) 

Hon Ming Kwong and Anor v SJ HCAL 47/2008 – in a complex ICAC case, when the trial judge refused to recuse himself upon the applicants’ application on the basis of prospective perception of bias, the applicants applied for judicial review, seeking an order of certiorari to quash the ruling and an order of prohibition to prohibit the trial judge from continuing to hear the trial (Appearing for the respondent; led by Kevin Zervos, SC, then DDPP)

Court of First Instance – Appeal against Conviction and/or Sentence

HKSAR v Ho Sin Yee and Anor [2015] 1 HKLRD 698 – doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of public justice in the context of “carrying on the food business of a fresh provision without a licence, contrary to the Food Business Regulation (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Ip Chin Kei and Ors [2012] 4 HKLRD 383 – oft-cited authority on the nature of magistracy appeal (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate at the substantive hearing)

HKSAR v Matt James Pearce [2009] 5 HKLRD 1 – public nuisance under the common law in which the Court discussed the public’s right to use the highway vis-à-vis the freedom of speech, assembly and demonstration and the interplay between the common law offence of public nuisance and the statutory offence of obstruction of public place under the Summary Offences Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Choi Wing Hong [2006] 1 HKLRD 278 – theft by swapping price labels with another product of a lower price before making payment at the cashier which was successful (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Tang Tak Company Limited [2004-2005] HKCLRT 219 – exporting prohibited articles to specified countries otherwise than under and in accordance with an export licence, contrary to the Import and Export Ordinance (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Lui Kim Ying Alan [2000] 3 HKLRD 622 – using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance in which the Court discussed what could constitute “special reason” for not imposing a disqualification from driving order (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)

HKSAR v Law Shu Fai [1995-2000] HKCLRT 568 – dealing with goods to which the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance applied in the context of illegal fuel filling station (Appearing for the respondent as sole advocate)