Shilun Zhou on Criminal Responsibility in Black-box AI Crime: Re-interpretation of Foreseeability and Inspirations for Canadian AI Regulations (IJLCJ)

"Criminal responsibility in black-box AI crime: Re-interpretation of foreseeability and inspirations for Canadian AI regulations"

Shilun Zhou (PhD Candidate)
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, December 2026, Vol. 87
Published online: September 2026

Abstract: Perpetrators using artificial intelligence (AI) to commit crime challenge the traditional criminal liability framework centred on foreseeability. This article argues that such a challenge is particularly acute in AI systems with black-box algorithms: perpetrators may exploit the lack of algorithmic transparency to claim they could not anticipate AI's output, thereby avoiding liability for criminal consequences, exceeding their mens rea. To circumvent the issue, this article adopts a novel knowledge-based approach to reinterpret the notion of foreseeability, and distinguishes between strict and relaxed interpretations of foreseeability, depending on the perpetrator's expected knowledge of criminal consequences. The strict interpretation is evident in the traditional doctrine, which requires knowledge only when perpetrators are expected to manipulate the criminal consequences. The relaxed interpretation suffices if the perpetrator knows the black-box AI will execute its programmed instructions without refusal, thus preventing them from evading responsibility by appealing to algorithmic opacity. The justification for the knowledge-based interpretation derives from preserving the autonomy of humans. This article further argues that AI systems should be designed to prevent and refuse participation in actus reus and should be subject to technical regulation. It also puts forward nuanced recommendations for Canada to enhance AI governance and anti-fraud regulation.

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2026 (Sweet & Maxwell)

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

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2025 (Sweet & Maxwell)

ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2025
Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary
General Editor: Professor Simon Young
Sweet & Maxwell
October 2024

Preface by the General Editor

The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (Ord. No. 6 of 2024) (“SNSO”) entered into force on 23 March 2024, only 15 days after the bill was read the first time in the Legislative Council. The SNSO adds 121 new provisions to our criminal law and amends/repeals 94 provisions across 28 Ordinances, including subsidiary legislation. Naturally, the changes brought about by the SNSO figure prominently in some of the chapters in this year’s volume, especially in Chapter 26 (National Security). Going forwards, legal updates in national security law will be captured in Chapter 26, except for those relating to sentencing (Chapter 5), proceeds of crime and production orders (Chapter 41), and other police powers (Chapter 15), which will be captured in the respective chapters indicated. I am grateful to the contributing editors of these and other chapters for their efforts in updating Archbold Hong Kong to reflect these new changes.

The SNSO fulfils the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s duty to enact laws on its own to prohibit seven types of national security threats, as mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“NSL”) of June 2020 covered two of those prohibitions (i.e. secession and subversion) and added new crimes to address terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external element. The SNSO completes the national security ecosystem by modernising previous offences (e.g. treason, misprision of treason, unlawful drilling, incitement to mutiny or disaffection, sedition, and offences in connection with state secrets and espionage), adding new ones (e.g. insurrection, sabotage, acts in relation to computers and electronic systems, external interference, disclosing a national security investigation, harassing persons handling national security cases/work), and conferring new executive powers to prohibit organisations endangering national security.

Perhaps the most controversial aspects of the SNSO are the departures from procedural norms that apply to other offences (e.g. extended detention of arrested person, restricted access to legal representative, movement restriction orders of persons on bail, disregarding 8-day rule on remand, translation of statements and exhibits only by order of magistrate, dispensing with preliminary inquiry, no section 16 discharge, anonymity measures). Those convicted of offences endangering national security cannot have a sentence of imprisonment suspended (i.e. they are excepted offences) and face presumptions against remission and early release. Finally, there are new measures aimed at facilitating the return of specified “absconders” who are not in Hong Kong.

Unlike the NSL, the offences and measures in the SNSO may be judicially reviewed for compatibility with the Basic Law and Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The “Principles” of the SNSO states that “human rights are to be respected and protected” and the rights and freedoms “enjoyed under the Basic Law, the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to the HKSAR, are to be protected in accordance with the law” (s.2(b)). The presumption of innocence and other legal rights in the criminal process are also expressly mentioned in the statement of Principles (s.2(c)). No doubt cases in the future will raise issues as to the proportionality of the new rules and decisions executed under those rules. For now, the number of notable national security law judgments can still be listed on less than two pages (see list below).

I wish to express my deep appreciation for the hard work of contributing editors in providing updates throughout the year for the supplements and main work, for the continuous support of the Sentencing Editor and Editor-in-Chief, for the diligent research done by my student editors (Oscar Wong, Jonathan Ho, and Cover Lai), and for overall management by Thomson Reuters colleagues, especially Wing Yan Ng.

Professor Simon NM Young

Ian Davies Professor in Ethics

Parkside Chambers

18 August 2024

List of Notable National Security Law Judgments

HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi [2024] HKCFA 25 (CO 9(1), legal certainty and proportionality of previous sedition offence)

HKSAR v Lui Sai Yu (2023) 26 HKCFAR 332, [2023] HKCFA 26 (NSL 33, sentencing bands, mitigating factors)

Secretary for Justice v Timothy Wynn Owen KC (2022) 25 HKCFAR 288, [2022] HKCFA 23 (NSL 3, courts' duty to safeguard national security and proper adjudication)

HKSAR v Ng Hau Yi Sidney (2021) 24 HKCFAR 417, [2021] HKCFA 42 (NSL 42(2) applies to Crimes Ord ss.9-10)

HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying  (2021) 24 HKCFAR 33, [2021] HKCFA 3 (NSL 42(2), NSL not subject to constitutional review, grounds for granting bail)

Secretary for Justice v Persons Conducting Themselves in Acts Prohibited (Use of Protest Song) [2024] 3 HKLRD 32, [2024] HKCA 442 (NSL 21, secession, civil injunction in aid of criminal law, necessity test)

HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi [2024] 2 HKLRD 565, [2024] HKCA 231 (Crimes Ord ss.9-10 sedition, jurisdiction under NSL 41(3), elements of offence, constitutional challenge)

Lai Chee Ying v Commissioner of Police [2022] 5 HKLRD 205, [2022] HKCA 1574 (NSL Implementation Rules (“IR”) Sch.1, journalistic materials)

HKSAR v Ma Chun Man [2022] 5 HKLRD 246, [2022] HKCA 1151 (NSL 21, sentencing, "serious nature")

Tong Ying Kit v Secretary for Justice [2021] 3 HKLRD 350, [2021] HKCA 912 (NSL 46(1) SJ certificate for non-jury trial, unamenable to constitutional review)

HKSAR v Ng Gordon Ching Hang [2024] HKCFI 1468 (NSL 22(3), elements of subversion, "unlawful means")

HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung [2024] HKCFI 553 (failing to comply with IR Sch.5 notice)

HKSAR v Kwok Man-hei [2024] HKCFI 280 (sentencing of Returning Valiant, conspiracy to commit terrorist activities)

Lai Chee Ying v The Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the HKSAR [2023] HKCFI 1382 (NSL 12, 14, Committee decision not amenable to judicial review)

HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying  [2023] 3 HKLRD 534, [2023] HKCFI 1440 (NSL 44, stay of proceedings)

Lai Chee Ying v Secretary for Justice [2023] 3 HKLRD 275, [2023] HKCFI 1382 (NSL 14, 47, NPCSC Interpretation, no jurisdiction over National Security Committee, certification against overseas lawyers)

Chow Hang Tung v Secretary for Justice [2022] 4 HKLRD 183, [2022] HKCFI 2225 (Magistrates Ord s.87A(2), lifting of reporting restrictions in committal for NSL charges)

J v Commissioner of Police [2021] 5 HKLRD 708, [2021] HKCFI 3586 (IR Sch.7, judicial authorisation)

HKSAR v Leung Kam Wai [2021] HKCFI 3214 (IR Sch.5, NSL 42(2) bail grounds apply to scheduled offences)

Lai Chee Ying v Secretary for Security [2021] 4 HKLRD 695, [2021] HKCFI 2804 (IR Sch.3, dealing with "specified property" includes exercising shareholder voting rights)

HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2021] 5 HKC 100, [2021] HKCFI 2239 (NSL 20-21, 24, sentencing, 9 years imprisonment)

HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2021] 5 HKC 100, [2021] HKCFI 2200 (NSL 20–21, 24, elements of secession and terrorism, assessment on protest slogan )

A and B v Commissioner of Police [2021] 3 HKLRD 300, [2021] HKCFI 1801 (IR Sch.7, legal professional privilege)

Next Digital Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2021] 5 HKC 411, [2021] HKCFI 1677 (IR r 2, empowers all police officers)

HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2021] 3 HKLRD 87, [2021] HKCFI 1644 (Criminal Procedure Ord s.23(1), late addition of alternative non-NSL charge, jurisdiction of designated judge)

HKSAR v Wan Yiu Sing Edmund [2021] HKCFI 1261 (bail refused)

Next Digital Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2021] 2 HKLRD 857, [2021] HKCFI 1128 (order to enable access to digital device refused)

HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying [2021] HKCFI 448 (bail application after CFA decision)

HKSAR v Cheung King-sang Kinson [2021] HKCFI 3584 (bail granted)

Tong Ying Kit v HKSAR [2020] 4 HKLRD 382, [2020] HKCFI 2133 (NSL 42(2),  lawful authority for refusal of bail, habeas corpus refused)

HKSAR v Cheung King Sang Kinson [2023] HKDC 1463 (sentencing for advocating terrorism)

HKSAR v Wong Denis Tak Keung [2023] HKDC 168 (sentencing for incitement to subversion)

HKSAR v Lai Man-ling [2022] HKDC 1004 (sentencing in speech therapists’ sedition case)

HKSAR v Lai Man-ling [2022] HKDC 981 (verdict in speech therapists’ sedition case)

HKSAR v Wan Yiu Sing Edmund [2022] HKDC 958 (sentencing for conspiracy to do acts with seditious intention)

New book by Anupama Sharma: Implementation of Rights for Crime Victims in Theory and Practice Lessons from India

Implementation of Rights for Crime Victims in Theory and Practice Lessons from India
Anupama Sharma (PhD graduate)
Routledge
Published in September 2024
224 pp.

Description: There are many different ways in which victims’ rights can be implemented. The implementation pattern may vary depending on the type of rights a jurisdiction offers and the purposes it seeks to achieve via these rights. However, there are a few basic aspects that remain common to the variation in the implementation patterns across jurisdictions. This book provides a theoretical and practical overview of such implementation patterns, their features and underlying differences. It presents theoretical models capturing the different types of implementations of victims’ rights and the purposes that they can achieve. The book also offers a framework comprising the essential aspects involved in implementation of rights such as drafting and presentation, their visibility and accessibility to victims, enforcement of rights in case of breach, and assessment and evaluation of rights to ensure constant monitoring and improvement in implementation. The framework is tested by a sample case study in New Delhi, India, which showcases how the framework can be molded and applied to assess the existing implementation of victims’ rights and the scope for reform. The book will be of interest to those working in the areas of criminal justice, criminal procedure, victimology and human rights.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Florence Lee

Welcome to Prof. Florence Lee, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Assistant Professor. Florence completed her DPhil at the St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. Prior to her DPhil, Florence obtained her MSc in Criminology and Criminal Justice (with Distinction) at the Worcester College, University of Oxford and her BA from Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge, graduating with double first class honours.

Florence teaches and conducts research in criminal law and criminal justice issues. She is interested in theoretical criminal law, criminal justice, sentencing as well as questions around risk, security and justice. She has published in journals including the Criminal Law Review and Sentencing News, and she has contributed a chapter to Precursor Crimes of Terrorism: The Criminalisation of Terrorism Risk in Comparative Perspective (Edward Elgar Publishing). She is a certified mediator and was called to the English Bar as a member of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn in 2020.

Jiajun Luo on Authoritarian Legal (Ir)rationality: The Saga of ‘Picking Quarrels’ in China (The ECLR Hub)

"Authoritarian Legal (Ir)rationality: The Saga of ‘Picking Quarrels’ in China"
Jiajun Luo (PhD candidate)
The ECLR Hub
Published online: March 2024

In response to an apartment fire in Urumqi which killed eleven residents in November 2022, Shanghai residents took to the city’s Urumqi Road, protesting peacefully against China’s zero-covid policy. While the protests resulted in the official end of nearly all Covid-19 related restrictions, several participants were detained and sentenced for picking quarrels and provoking trouble (Criminal Code Art. 293). Photo by Cinea467

It is widely reported that the utilization of the crime picking quarrels (寻衅滋事) by Chinese authorities has resulted in the imprisonment of thousands for their online expressions, ranging from complaints about traffic police to criticisms of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on social media platforms. Moreover, this catchall category extends beyond speech-related offenses, serving as a tool for political suppression since 2013 and targeting various civil groups in China, including feminists and human rights lawyers.

However, picking quarrels is not confined to politically sensitive cases. Authorities also employ it to...

Please click here for full article on the ECLR and click here for draft paper on SSRN.

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2024 (Sweet & Maxwell)

ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2024
Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary
General Editor: Professor Simon Young
Sweet & Maxwell
October 2023

Preface by the General Editor

Hong Kong said goodbye to a legal giant on 24 June 2023. Sir Ti Liang Yang made enormous contributions to the law in Hong Kong before 1997, especially in criminal cases. In his 40 years of service in the Judiciary, he adjudicated criminal cases in all possible judicial roles in Hong Kong: magistrate, District Judge, Judge of the High Court, Justice of Appeal, Vice-President, and Chief Justice. Uniquely, he had a practice of visiting some of the defendants he had convicted to see how they were doing in prison.

    His vision of the law and the role of courts was articulated in a speech he gave at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in October 1984. He had no a priori concept of the place of law. Rather, he thought that society, as “the mother of law”, “determines the contents of its laws”. Believing a “particular type of society requires a particular law”, he was adamant that Hong Kong not simply copy English law but that it would take root and grow into something distinctively Hong Kong. He described the process in these terms, in his 1992 speech at the Opening of the Legal Year:

     “But the legal system that has taken root may still be regarded as an alien organism.  The final stage must be transformation – a process by which the spirit of the legal system is so intermingled with the culture and ethos of the new society that a new system emerges, still largely based on the ancestry whence it came, but evidencing a metamorphosis which has eradicated its foreignness.”

He believed this transformative process would not be insular but undergone with the benefit of talent and precedents from other common law countries, particularly “the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or Canada”.  He thought that having foreign judges and lawyers serving in Hong Kong would help us “avoid being out of touch and at the same time enrich our own law”.

     As for the role of courts, it is the “judicial organ that breathes life and motion into our law”, whose aims include “to attain balance within the society”. He made the following insightful statement about the function of courts which is worth reflecting upon:

    “If the courts constantly let the people and the executive arm of government clearly understand the limits of their own rights and obligations so that all words and actions may be tested against the law, then the law will become something which is capable of life and movement, and it sets a standard of behaviour which everyone may rely on.”

     Many of his criminal law judgments have endured and demonstrated great foresight. For example, his judgments on attempts (The Queen v Chan Kwong [1987] HKLR 756 (CA)) and implied assertions in hearsay (The Queen v Ng Kin-yee [1994] 2 HKCLR 1 (CA)) are still assigned readings in our LLB/JD law curricula. His judgment on cross-examining police officers on lying in previous proceedings (The Queen v Lam Wai-keung [1994] 2 HKCLR 9 (CA)) resonates with the Court of Final Appeal (CFA)’s judgment in HKSAR v Wong Sau-ming (2003) 6 HKCFAR 135. One can trace the seeds of the Mushtaq direction to The Queen v Yu Ho-man [1995] 1 HKCLR 87, 89(ln 25) (CA). His judgment in Mohd. Daraiz v The Attorney General [1976] HKLR 386, 397 (HC), though overruled in Halim Sulman v The Queen [1977] HKLR 214 (CA), showed emergent recognition of a half-way house defence for offences of strict liability. His judgment on the co-conspirators’ rule (The Queen v Alick Au Shui Yuen [1993] 2 HKC 219 (CA)) has been highly influential and helped inform the later CFA judgments on the issue, e.g. HKSAR v Vivien Fan (2011) 14 HKCFAR 641.

     Sir Ti Liang had a strong view of judicial independence. He stated: “It is absolutely necessary that judicial work be carried out strictly in accordance with the law and be not influenced by outside factors in any way.”  Thus, despite receiving several threatening letters when he was trying the corruption case of former police superintendent, Peter Fitzroy Godber, they had no influence on him and he was not scared.  He also believed judicial independence “not only ensures impartial trials, it also has the effect of preventing abuses and excesses by the government so that the people may receive the protection of the law”.  Such view was reflected in his decision in The Queen v Li Wing-tat [1991] 1 HKLR 731 (HC), holding that the magistrate should have stayed the charges brought against protesters for using loudhailers and collecting donations without permit.  He found that it offended “the sense of fairness” for the police to suddenly change from a regular practice of giving violators a warning to prosecuting them, without prior notice of a change in practice.  Though the decision was overturned in The Queen v Soo Fat Ho [1992] 2 HKCLR 114 (CA), it demonstrates the former Chief Justice’s concern that prosecutorial power be not abused.

     I wish to thank all those who contribute to the continuing success of this publication including all the contributing editors, the Sentencing Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, my team of student editors, and the wonderful colleagues at Thomson Reuters.

Professor Simon NM Young
Ian Davies Professor in Ethics
Parkside Chambers
29 August 2023

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2022 (Sweet & Maxwell)

ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2022

Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary

General Editor: Professor Simon Young

Sweet & Maxwell
December 2021

Preface by the General Editor

The start of 2021 saw the end of the Ma Court and the inception of the Cheung Court. The Ma Court’s contribution to the development of the criminal law in Hong Kong was significant. Though it heard, on average, fewer substantive appeals than the Li Court, its proportion of criminal law judgments was considerably higher (Li Court: 34 per cent; Ma Court: 42 per cent), with the Chief Justice presiding in almost three quarters of those cases (compared to two thirds during the Li Court).

      There is remarkable continuity from the Li to Ma Courts in terms of judgment data in criminal cases. Dissents were rare (less than 5 per cent), one fifth of decisions had a concurring judgment, and the rest were single judgments. Almost one fifth of criminal cases considered a fundamental right or freedom, though one might say all criminal cases engage the fundamental right to liberty. Government appeals were roughly around 15 per cent, and defendants succeeded in more than 55 per cent of cases (Li Court: 58 per cent; Ma Court: 57 per cent).

     One difference was the increased number of lead judgments written by the permanent judges of the Court of the Final Appeal (Li Court: 56 per cent; Ma Court: 71 per cent), with a consequential decrease in judgments written by the overseas non-permanent judges (Li Court: 25 per cent; Ma Court: 14 per cent). As the Court matures and its body of case law grows, one would expect this trend to continue. This is not to suggest the overseas judges were any less influential in shaping the jurisprudence, as they continued to sit in 99 per cent of all cases, being absent in only two in the initial period of the Covid-19 pandemic.

     This preface does not allow for an in-depth discussion of the 99 criminal law judgments rendered by the Ma Court. Instead, I highlight and commend 12 decisions which, in my opinion, represent a distinct Hong Kong approach to the criminal law. These cases are important as they show how the Court determines the relevant legal position in uncharted territory, often not following the positions adopted in the court(s) below or by other jurisdictions including the United Kingdom. The selected decisions, in chronological order, are HKSAR v Muhammad Riaz Khan (2012) 15 HKCFAR 232 (test for excluding unconstitutionally obtained evidence), HKSAR v Chan Yau Hei (2014) 17 HKCFAR 110 (Internet not a physical place for the offence of outraging public decency), HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai (2014) 17 HKCFAR 778 (clarifying the mens rea of the money laundering offence), HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing (2016) 19 HKCFAR 640 (re-stating the principles of accessory liability including the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise), HKSAR v Liang Yaoqiang (2017) 20 HKCFAR 1 (“do as he did” direction in provocation), HKSAR v Hui Rafael Junior (2017) 20 HKCFAR 264 (elements of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office), HKSAR v Fong Kwok Shan Christine (2017) 20 HKCFAR 425 (limits of freedom of expression in the precincts of the Legislative Council), Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 (sentencing of young offenders), HKSAR v Choi Wai Lun (2018) 21 HKCFAR 167 (mens rea for the age element in indecent assault), HKSAR v Wan Thomas (2018) 21 HKCFAR 214 (meaning of “visitors” in the Prison Rules), Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee (2019) 22 HKCFAR 97 (offence of obtaining access to a computer not applying to the use of one’s own computer), and HKSAR v Yuong Ho Cheung (2020) 23 HKCFAR 311 (Uber services in contravention of road traffic offence).
     All indicators thus far suggest a continuity of approach in the Cheung Court.  Handed a hot potato in its first case (HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying (2021) 24 HKCFAR 33), it acquitted itself wisely in the circumstances.  Resonating with the tenor of previous decisions, the Court held that “[a]s far as possible”, the National Security Law is “to be given a meaning and effect compatible with” human rights and freedoms and rule of law values (at [42]). As Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma affirmed in his farewell address, the “importance we place on rights and freedoms is a fundamental feature of the Basic Law” ((2020) 24 HKCFAR 1, 5). In its third and latest judgment (HKSAR v Liang Yaoqiang [2021] HKCFA 26), the Cheung Court showed a merciful side, again similar to the approach seen in previous cases, e.g. HKSAR v Zhou Limei (2020) 23 HKCFAR 169.  In refusing to order a fourth trial, Chief Justice Cheung said the case had “reached a point where enough is enough, and the interests of justice are no longer served  by continuing with the prosecution of the appellant for murder” (at [50]).  This would appear to be another instance of the broader application of what the Lord Chief Justice said in Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 1989 (1990) 90 Cr App R 366, 371: “That mercy should season justice is a proposition as soundly based in law as it is in literature.”  Now as much as ever this proposition deserves our fullest contemplation.
     The production of Archbold Hong Kong each year requires an enormous amount of collective effort. In this regard, I thank the Editor-in-Chief, the Sentencing Editor, our team of contributing editors, the colleagues at Thomson Reuters, and my assistant editors for all their contributions over the past year.

Professor Simon NM Young

Parkside Chambers

September 2021

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2021 (Sweet & Maxwell)

ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2021

Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary

General Editor: Professor Simon Young

Sweet & Maxwell

December 2020

Preface by the General Editor

Archbold’s first general editor was John Frederick Archbold. By analogy, Archbold Hong Kong’s first general editor would be considered Hong Kong’s Archbold. Sadly Hong Kong’s Archbold passed away on 28 April 2020. This is a fitting title for Dr Gerard McCoy SC. His encyclopedic knowledge of the law, especially the criminal law, was well known and undoubtedly a matter of judicial notice in many countries. Mr Justice Frank Stock, in his preface to the first edition of this work, described Dr McCoy as “a tireless worker, possessed of a meticulous eye and as well-versed in the principles and detail of the criminal law as one could wish”. Though he appeared for government in a good number of cases, he had a big heart for the underdog and an unrelenting sense of justice. He was also very much reform-minded, which I witnessed having the honour of working with him on two law reform committees and two landmark Court of Final Appeal cases on joint criminal enterprise and refugee non-refoulement. In court, he was as distinguished as any silk who has ever practiced in this jurisdiction, but he was also a compassionate leader who could instantly dissolve the nerves of a junior at the start of a hearing by offering a fist bump with the words ‘Go Team’. He was a lawyer’s lawyer, one who would not hesitate to offer advice, or a case reference, to any fellow member of the bar who sought his assistance. In his practice, he continuously prodded the law, and for that we got to learn so much more about the law, whatever may have been the result in the case. One need only have regard to the cases he handled in his last year to appreciate his unparalleled contribution to the criminal law in Hong Kong. Those cases enhanced our understanding of the right to interpreter assistance in criminal trials (CACC 135/2017; CACC 320/2016), the right to privacy and police searches of mobile phones (CACV 270/2017); remedial interpretation of the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance (CACC 237/2015), the rule in Browne v Dunn (CACC 65/2017), and the constitutionality of sentences for male buggery offences (CACC 361/2018). This is only a small sample of a corpus of law which he helped to generate. 

    In his preface, echoing the words of Archbold, Dr McCoy wrote that this work would aim “to become ‘a practically useful book’ which identifies and collates the current substantive, procedural, evidential and adjectival criminal law of Hong Kong”. In this spirit, the current edition collates the contents of 《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區維護國家安全法》(Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), which was applied locally on 30 June 2020. This National Security Law (NSL) is the most important piece of criminal law legislation applied in Hong Kong in recent times, and practitioners are slowly coming to terms with it. The NSL is currently covered across Chapters 2, 5, 15, 19, 26, 41 and 42, but for the future the aim is to capture NSL jurisprudential developments mainly in Chapter 26, concerned with national security offences.

    Hong Kong’s Archbold ended his preface with the four Chinese characters, 金科玉律, which was likely a reference to Viscount Sankey’s “one golden thread” famously penned in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, 481. It is a fitting reminder that even in the post-NSL era persons charged with a criminal offence are always presumed innocent, the duty being on the prosecution to prove the person’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I thank my three able assistant editors (Wilson Lui, Eric Chan, Josh Baker), the entire team of contributing editors who remain so dedicated to this work, the Editor-in-Chief for his wise counsel, and Thomson Reuters (Kevin Stokes, Stephen Blackwell, Abdul Azeem Ali) for all their assistance over the past year.

Professor Simon NM Young

Parkside Chambers

October 2020

HKU Law academics serving as Contributing Editors in this year's volume include Amanda Whitfort (1. The Indictment; 46. Animals), Simon Young (11. The Hearsay Rule; 19. Human Rights), and Michael Jackson (17. Principals and Secondary Parties; 18. Strict Liability).

Albert Chen on the Offence of Unauthorized Assembly

In a piece entitled ‘Comments for the Press on the Recent Controversy arising from Statements of the HKMAO and Liaison Office’ published on this Blog on 22 April, I have already set out my views on the controversy.

     In an article entitled "15 arrested over assemblies broke public security law" published in China Daily (Hong Kong edition) on 23 April, I was misquoted as saying that "the 15 public figures arrested on Saturday on suspicion of organizing or participating in unauthorized assemblies last year have definitely broken Hong Kong's public security law". This is definitely a misquote.

    The article was based on an interview conducted in Cantonese earlier this week. During the interview, I never said anything in Cantonese that can be translated as "the persons concerned have definitely broken Hong Kong’s public security law". Instead, I tried to explain that under the Public Order Ordinance (Cap 245), there are different offences such as organising or participating in an ‘unauthorized assembly’, an ‘unlawful assembly’, and a riot. The threshold (in terms of evidence) for conviction for ‘unauthorized assembly’ is not high, because unlike in the two latter cases, there is no need for the prosecution to prove that the assembly involved any public disorder, breach of the peace or violence, or risk of public disorder or breach of the peace or of violence breaking out. All that the prosecution has to prove is that the assembly was unauthorized because no prior notification had been given to the police.

    It is unfortunate the above legal points which I made at the interview were not reported in the article, and instead there was the misquote mentioned above.  For more information on the offences of authorized assembly, unlawful assembly and rioting, reference can be made to sections 17A, 18, and 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap 245).  The offence of 'unauthorized assembly' was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Kwok Wing Hang v Chief Executive in Council [2020] HKCA 192, [193]-[246]. The elements of the offences of unlawful assembly and rioting and their constitutionality were considered in HKSAR v Leung Tin Kei [2018] HKCFI 2715.

Albert H.Y. Chen 

24 April 2020

Simon Young on Old Law in New Bottles: Reintroducing National Security Legislation in Hong Kong (new book chapter)

"Old Law in New Bottles: Reintroducing National Security Legislation in Hong Kong"

Simon NM Young

in Cora Chan & Fiona de Londras (eds), China's National Security: Endangering Hong Kong's Rule of Law? (Hart Publishing, March 2020),
Chapter 12, pp. 211- 230

Introduction: It is unthinkable that any future legislative exercise to reintroduce national security legislation in Hong Kong would start from a clean slate. To do so would be to ignore the considerable amount of intellectual work and public debate that went into the 2003 proposals. Those proposals had imperfections, but they also had some merit in proposing to modernise existing offences and abolish laws that, if used, would impinge on fundamental rights protected in the Basic Law. However, just as it would be foolhardy to disregard the 2003 proposals, it would be equally so to believe those proposals could be reintroduced without change; they are now old bottles for old wine. Important developments since 2003 in the legal and political contexts of China, Hong Kong and Macau need to be taken into account in any future exercise. Relevant international developments in anti-terrorism laws should also inform law-making deliberations.

     This chapter considers the shape of new bottles for the old law of national security in Hong Kong. It identifies important local and international developments relevant to any future Article 23 legislative exercise, particularly two of the controversial proposals of 2003 concerning the offence of secession and the proscription mechanism for foreign political organisations. It will be argued there is no justification for reintroducing the proscription mechanism and its accompanying criminal offence. As for the secession offence, the 2003 proposal can be made legitimate by drafting the terms more clearly and keeping the scope within tighter limits. It is further argued that notwithstanding the rise in pro-independence sentiments amongst a small number of people in Hong Kong, introducing an additional offence criminalising the advocacy of secession would be unjustified and highly problematic.

     The chapter begins with a review of significant legal developments since 2003. First there is the case law of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), from which can be derived a set of legislative guidelines for drafting national security offences. Next there are the legislative developments in mainland China and Macau related to national security. Finally, the consequences and experience of post-9/11 antiterrorism legislation may shed light on the merits of adopting similar procedural mechanisms. Following this review, proposals for the secession offence, required by Article 23, and a proscription mechanism for individuals and bodies on national security grounds are discussed having regard to the developments since 2003 particularly the legislative guidelines proposed in this chapter...

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2020 (Sweet & Maxwell)

ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2020
Editor-in-Chief: The Hon. Mr Justice Bokhary
General Editor: Professor Simon Young
Sweet & Maxwell
December 2019

Preface by the General Editor

Since the anti-extradition bill protests began in June 2019, thousands have been arrested, hundreds charged, and the numbers continue to grow. The public will closely follow these protest-related cases as they enter and make their way through the criminal justice system. Criminal justice in these turbulent times presents new challenges to those who contribute to the administration of justice in Hong Kong. If it were not for the extradition bill and ensuing protests, many students, young people, teachers, professionals and other law-abiding residents would not be caught up in the system. Whether they will feel contempt or respect for the system at the end of their case may well depend on how they are treated within the system. Perceptions of defendants being treated unfairly will have long term consequences for people’s respect for the law and confidence in the administration of justice. 

     A sudden influx of a large number of new cases also comes with its own challenges. Existing resources will be stretched in different ways and delays in the system will follow unless resources are appropriately augmented. Maybe the net increase in cases will not be as great as one might expect as considerable police resources have been diverted from regular policing to policing protesters. 

     Some have wondered whether the circumstances, as extraordinary as they are, call for a general amnesty from prosecution. An amnesty is a controversial political issue that should be debated in the legislature. On one hand, an amnesty suspends the principle of having legal consequences for one’s actions; on the other, it provides an expedient way for society to move on from a period of civil unrest. A continuous stream of delayed and prolonged criminal prosecutions will remind people of the underlying political conflicts and make it difficult to achieve reconciliation. Criminal cases from the civil disobedience protests of 2014 and 2015, which now pale in comparison to the violence seen in 2019, are still making their way through the courts. There are alternatives to an amnesty worth debating. Adopting new limitation periods to the laying of charges for certain offences will help to bring closure within a reasonable time without a wholesale suspension of prosecutions and legal responsibility. An early diversion programme for minor first time offenders is another alternative. 

     At a forum held at the University of Hong Kong in early September, one first-year LLB student asked if he had just joined a “sunset industry”. On the contrary, now more than ever Hong Kong needs dedicated and knowledgeable criminal lawyers to protect the rights of defendants and help them make informed decisions as they navigate through the criminal process. In pursuing resolute and fearless advocacy for one’s client, there is also the importance of civility. All must guard against allowing the incivility on the streets from being replicated in the courtroom. As Justice Moldaver wrote in Groia v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27 at [67], “incivility can erode public confidence in the administration of justice – a vital component of an effective justice system”. Moreover, civility, rather than incivility, is “often the most effective form of advocacy” (at [76]). 

     If there is anything positive to come from the 2019 protests, hopefully it is greater attention paid by the government and legislators to the issue of youth justice. The number of young people becoming entangled in the criminal justice system is alarming, and their future after a sojourn in the system appears dim. Recent judgments of the Court of Final Appeal have helpfully clarified that young age is “always a relevant mitigating factor” because “the better opportunity for reformation and rehabilitation… must assume greater significance” (Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at [84]; Secretary for Justice v Leung Hiu Yeung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 421 at [51]). Legislative reforms are also warranted, beginning with the abolition of section 109A(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221), as recommended by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong in February 2014. This reform would enable the youth sentencing principles in section 109A(1) (i.e. jail as a last resort and the duty to obtain and consider information about the young person) to apply to all offences. Legislators should also debate a more basic question of whether a different paradigm to trial and sentencing should apply to persons under the age of 21 years. 

     Despite these challenges, criminal justice in turbulent times will be mostly business as usual. The system will continue to dispense justice in accordance with the law. Like our first-year student, some perceive the 2019 unrest as severely damaging the rule of law. But the foundations of rule of law in Hong Kong run deep and remain strong, free from corrosive elements, such as systemic corruption or ineptitude, seen in other places. Deep-rooted values and principles of the common law serve to ensure the system operates with fairness, integrity and humanity. These do not suddenly disappear when a political crisis has led to violence on the streets. 

     These values and principles are reflected in many judgments collected each year in this work. I highlight five cases from the past year. Note should be taken of the care and attention paid to the right to interpreter assistance in HKSAR v Moala Alipate [2019] 3 HKLRD 20 (CA), the decision not to order a retrial in HKSAR v Tsang Yam-Kuen, Donald (2019) 22 HKCFAR 176, the legal principles on reversal of guilty pleas set out in HKSAR v Chan Chi Ho Lincoln (2018) 21 HKCFAR 588, when ignorance of the law can be a defence as explained in HKSAR v Shum Wai Kee (2019) 22 HKCFAR 11, and when unfairness can arise from a duplicitous conspiracy charge, a complex area of the law made clearer in HKSAR v Chen Keen (alia Jack Chen) [2019] HKCFA 32. I thank my three able assistant editors and Ms Alisha Nanwani for all their helpful assistance. 

Professor Simon NM Young

Parkside Chambers

3 October 2019

HKU Law academics serving as Contributing Editors in this year's volume include Amanda Whitfort (1. The Indictment; 13. Evidence of Similar Facts; 46. Animals), Simon Young (11. The Hearsay Rule; 19. Human Rights), and Michael Jackson (17. Principals and Secondary Parties; 18. Strict Liability).

Simon Young on Policing and Prosecution of Money Laundering (new book chapter)

"Policing and prosecution of money laundering"
Simon Young
in V Mitsilegas, S Hufnagel, and A Moiseienko (eds), Research Handbook on Transnational Crime (Edward Elgar 2019) Chapter 10

Introduction: Almost all countries have a criminal offence of money laundering in their law books. This happened in a relatively short time, beginning from the late 1980s with the emergence of international standard setting on money laundering. With the establishment of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 1989 and the conclusion of a series of transnational criminal law treaties (beginning with the 1988 Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances), countries have accepted and implemented obligations to establish an extensive global anti-money laundering (AML) regime in their domestic law.2 Countries have also accepted international scrutiny of their AML regime through mutual evaluation conducted by the FATF and associated regional bodies.3 In their early years, these evaluations assessed only compliance with a set of international standards (commonly known as the FATF’s 40 Recommendations), but more recently, since 2013, they have also involved separate evaluations of the effectiveness of a jurisdiction’s AML regime according to a smaller set of immediate outcomes.4 The first set of evaluation reports done under the new methodology provides rich data for reflection on what has been achieved in the policing and prosecution of money laundering in the 30 years since the articulation of international standards. The reports show that while states are largely compliant technically with relevant standards, their performance in achieving policing and prosecution outcomes is underwhelming. This chapter identifies some of the salient considerations relevant to high and low effectiveness in policing and prosecution outcomes. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the distinctive features of policing and prosecuting the money laundering offence. It then outlines the FATF’s international standards on money laundering and its method of mutual evaluation, particularly after the extension of the methodology to effectiveness assessments in 2013. The focus in this chapter is on the standards of policing and prosecution of money laundering. In the FATF methodology, three outcome standards are directly relevant: the use of financial intelligence, the enforcement of the money laundering offence, and the confiscation of criminal property. After providing an overview of the results in the 48 jurisdictions reviewed for effectiveness thus far, this chapter looks more closely at the evaluations of three jurisdictions obtaining high effectiveness ratings and three jurisdictions obtaining low ratings. From this analysis, a list of relevant considerations is identified. The chapter concludes with some reflections on the future of FATF mutual evaluations.

New Book: Criminal Law in Sri Lanka (Michael Hor and others) (LexisNexis)

Criminal Law in Sri Lanka

Wing-Cheong Chan, Michael Hor, Neil Morgan, Jeeva Niriella and Stanley Yeo

LexisNexis

Published in November 2019

Description: This book describes and evaluates the general principles of criminal responsibility and the major offences against the person and property contained in the Sri Lankan Penal Code. The aims are to assist in the application of the law and to provide suggestions for reform. To achieve these aims, it examines cases from other Penal Code jurisdictions as well as from Sri Lanka. There has not been a comprehensive study of the Sri Lankan Penal Code since Professor GL Peiris’ books were published nearly 40 years ago (General Principles of Criminal Liability in Ceylon: A Comparative Analysis (1st Edn, 1972; 2nd Edn, 1980) and Offences under the Penal Code of Ceylon (1st Edn, 1973; 2nd Edn, 1982)). Significant legislative and case law developments have occurred since that time. Much of the Penal Code has stood the test of time. However, given its antiquity, this commentary proposes significant reforms. They include the enactment of a ‘General Part’, with precise and comprehensive provisions reflecting contemporary views about criminal responsibility.

   Key Features:

• Comprehensive analysis of the general principles of criminal responsibility in Sri Lanka
• Analysis of the major offences against the person and property in light of the general principles of criminal responsibility
• Review of major relevant cases from Sri Lanka, India, Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore
• Placing the law in a historical and theoretical context pointing to its strengths and weaknesses, and suggesting potential reforms to bring the law into the 21st Century

Amanda Whitfort on Wildlife Crime and Animal Victims: Improving Access to Environmental Justice in Hong Kong (forthcoming journal article)

"Wildlife Crime and Animal Victims: Improving Access to Environmental Justice in Hong Kong"

Amanda Whitfort

Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, forthcoming 2020

Abstract: Wildlife crimes are often argued to be victimless, due to the anthropocentric view of crime which dominates policy and policing discourse. Falling outside the normative criminal justice lens, wildlife crimes are not frequently brought to court and lack of expertise in policing and prosecuting cases impairs their recognition as serious crimes. When wildlife offences are prosecuted, the tendency to try cases in the magistrates’ courts compounds problems with lack of judicial exposure to this specialised form of crime and limits development of judicial expertise in the field. The traditional punishments utilised for wildlife crimes have also tended to follow the trajectory for mainstream offences, focussing exclusively on the liability of the defendant (through considerations of deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation) or on the remedying of harms to the environment (via restoration and compensation). Lacking legal standing in the court process, harms caused to endangered animals (as individuals or species) have been marginalised from consideration in sentencing decisions. Recognised only as legal property, they may be forfeited or returned to their lawful owners, in accordance with the court’s findings. Focusing on recent developments in Scotland and Hong Kong, this paper argues that a more effective justice response to wildlife crime permits recognition of the interests of animals, as victims, in wildlife offences. While victim impact statements for pollution offences are received by the courts in many jurisdictions, with the notable exception of Scotland, they have not been formally recognised for animals in wildlife offences. In Scotland, prosecutors and the judiciary are now provided with expert evidence as to the range of social, economic and species harms caused by wildlife offending. Armed with knowledge of the role of animals as individual and species victims of crime, sentences may be passed which take appropriate regard of wild animal suffering, their monetary and conservation value, and the impact of their loss on biodiversity. In Hong Kong, the nature of wild animals as victims of crime has also begun to be recognised in the use of victim impact statements for wildlife offences. Victim impact statements for 33 of the most commonly smuggled animals traded into and through Hong Kong are now utilised by prosecutors in their presentation of wildlife cases at court. The use of these statements is allowing for better informed sentencing decisions in individual cases and improved environmental justice in the region.  This is output from GRF Grant No 17655316. Please contact the author (whitfort@hku.hk) to obtain the full text.