ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2025
Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary
General Editor: Professor Simon Young
Sweet & Maxwell
October 2025
Preface by the General Editor
In the 2010 volume of this text, the then General Editor, Mr Clive Grossman SC, referred to the high convictions rates in Hong Kong and likened them to approaching those in North Korea. Those comments sparked controversy and debate in the community. A panel of the Legislative Council (LegCo) discussed the issue in October 2009 and later when the panel discussed reforms to criminal legal aid and whether trial by jury should be incorporated in District Court criminal trials. One positive outcome of the debate was clearer reporting of conviction rates from the Department of Justice (DOJ), by disaggregating the rate in cases of pleas of not guilty from the overall rate, which included guilty plea cases.
Fifteen years on, what trends do we see in the conviction rates in the three levels of criminal courts? The graphs below show the conviction rates after trial compared to the overall conviction rates in the Magistrates’ Court, District Court, Court of First Instance, and all courts combined, from 2010 to 2024. The data is taken from the DOJ Prosecutions Division’s yearly review reports.
The data is based on conviction rates per defendant, meaning a defendant convicted of any offence will be counted, but will not be counted if acquitted outright. As the Law Society of Hong Kong noted in its 2010 submission to LegCo, such an approach can result in higher rates than one based on counting convictions per offence(s) charged.
From the above graphs, conviction rates after trial appear to have slightly risen over the years in the Magistrates’ Court and District Court, though there has been some fluctuation in the latter. The rate in the Court of First Instance has fallen over the years, hitting a low point in 2021 (51%), but gradually rising since then. Note that the rise in 2024 reflects the 14 convicted in the “Hong Kong 47” case, tried not by a jury. The average conviction rates after trial in the three respective courts are 53%, 73%, and 63%. When combined, the average conviction rate after trial is 55%.
The overall conviction rates in the District Court (94%) and Court of First Instance (91%) are still high on average, little changed from those noted by Mr Grossman in 2009. The average overall rate in the Magistrates’ Court, on the other hand, is 71%, which raises the question whether some defendants should not have been charged at all or dealt with by alternative measures. But there has been a significant drop in the number of persons prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court. In 2010, 9295 were convicted and 3299 acquitted, compared to the 2742 convicted and 1236 acquitted in 2024. Since 2017, there is a consistent trend of more convicted persons choosing trial over pleading guilty in magistracy cases.
No single factor can explain the differences in the post-trial conviction rates in the three courts. The types of cases normally tried at each tier would be an important factor. For example, conviction rates for sexual offences may be known anecdotally to be lower than those in cases of other offences, such as money laundering. Practices in making and reconsidering decisions to prosecute, the quality of legal advice given, if any, to defendants, the obstinance of defendants to opt for trial despite legal advice to the contrary, the effectiveness of defence and prosecuting trial counsel, the effect of delay on trial outcomes, and biases (whether conscious or unconscious) in decision-makers are other potential factors. More research would need to be conducted to understand the reasons for the different rates of conviction.
In 2010, the Law Society did not believe the conviction rate data supported the case for having juries in the District Court because at the time the rate of conviction in the Court of First Instance was higher than that in the District Court. As that position has now clearly changed, one might want to revisit the issue of juries in the District Court or at least the right of a defendant in certain cases to elect trial by jury.
Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore passed away on 29 December 2024. As a member of the Judiciary for 26 years, his imprint on the criminal law was enormous. A Westlaw search of his name in the Judge field returns 2306 results, including many of his rulings and judgments given as a Deputy High Court Judge after his retirement from the Court of Appeal in 2009. He made ample references to Archbold Hong Kong in his judgments, which in turn provided substantial material for incorporation in this text. In recognition of his contribution to the criminal law of Hong Kong, mention is made here of some of his important judgments, though there are many others. Two of his classic judgments are still taught in my evidence course: The Queen v Tsang Wai-ki [1996] 3 HKC 111, on mere propensity evidence, and HKSAR v Mo Shiu-shing [1999] 2 HKLRD 155, on post-offence conduct. The latter was cited with approval in HKSAR v Yuen Kwai Choi (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113. His judgments on drug trafficking sentencing have been quite influential, particularly HKSAR v Wong Suet-hau, Ice [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 (on social trafficking and self-consumption) and Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 (guidelines for ecstasy and ketamine trafficking), though the Court of Appeal has recently indicated a willingness to reconsider the guidelines set down in Hii Siew Cheng (see HKSAR v Choi Tsz Fung [2025] HKCA 733).
Justice Stuart-Moore also wrote two important judgments on diminished responsibility as a partial defence to murder: HKSAR v Tsui Chu Tin, John [2005] 1 HKC 518 and HKSAR v Liu Chun Yip [2006] 4 HKLRD 595. He demonstrated a strong sense of fairness in cases like HKSAR v Luo Xian Ping [2007] 3 HKLRD 203, where a jury direction on reckless rape was given without notice to the parties, and HKSAR v Chan Sung Wing [2008] 1 HKLRD 126, where he was severely critical of the prosecution practice of charging manufacturing a dangerous drug in cases meriting only a charge of simple possession. Some judgments simply stood out, for the effort taken to commend the police officers involved who courageously apprehended a gang of armed robbers (HKSAR v Chan Wan-cheung [2007] 4 HKLRD 606), for expressing moral disapprobation of a crime involving an attempt to chop off the right hand of a 7-year-old boy (HKSAR v Tsang Ho Wai [2008] 4 HKC 1), and for outlining new specimen directions on juror communication with the trial judge where something improper is thought to have occurred (HKSAR v Mohammed Saleem [2009] 1 HKLRD 369). I will always remember his kindness to me when I served as a judge’s marshal.
After eight volumes at the helm of editing this important text, I have decided to pass the torch to a new General Editor. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the importance of the timely contributions made by our large team of contributing editors. We have tried to retain and recruit contributors who are not only passionate about the criminal law but can also keep their respective chapter(s) updated, sometimes with new ideas and improvements. I am most grateful to all the past and current contributing editors for their dedication and service. I am also grateful to the Editor-in-Chief and Sentencing Editor who have provided us with constant support and encouragement. I wish to thank my many student editors who have helped me over the years, particularly Liam Lai and Jonathan Ho for this current volume; it is heartening to see some of them go to become criminal law practitioners. Finally, I am fortunate to have the support of the publishing team at Sweet & Maxwell. They keep us on track and have great patience when we fall behind. I particularly acknowledge Wing Yan Ng for her kindness and helpful assistance. I wish the new General Editor all the very best in taking this publication forward.
Professor Simon NM Young
Ian Davies Professor in Ethics
Parkside Chambers
29 August 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment