THE QUEEN v. LEE LUN, THOMPSON

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

                    The only ground of appeal I considered had any validity was that set out in para. 1 of the Substituted Grounds of Appeal. On any of the other grounds raised I would have had no hesitation in dismissing the appeal.

                    In para. 1, however, the direction of the magistrate on the burden and standard of proof was attached. I was referred to, inter alia, to LEU LOWE v. The Queen⁽1), KNOW Kwok-kai v. The Queen ⁽²⁾ which reviewed a number of authorities.

                    The directions of the magistrate at page 4 of his notes of judgment were clearly defective. In this sort of case, and in particular when dealing with a person of good character, clear and accurate directions on this fundamental matter are required. A citizen does not have to prove his innocence and so the direction as to the burden of proof and the standard required to satisfy it must be given. The Attorney General accepted that there was nothing else in the judgment  which either corrected the misdirections or assisted him in seeking to uphold the findings.

                    I therefore on this ground allowed the appeal.

(1) 699 of 1969 (Huggins, J.)

(2) 91 of 1977 (Leonard, J.)