http://www.cityu.edu.hk/slw/CityULR/index.html

City University of Hong Kong Law Review, Kowloon (2026)

27/03/2026

The Right to Silence at Trial: HKSAR v HUANG Ruifang [2026] HKCFA 3

The main issue of this trial is whether the right to silence is an absolute right. In other words, whether the court has the necessity to protect an individual from physical or other coercion to testify by those in position of authority.

This case reaffirms such absolute protection of the right to silence in Hong Kong criminal proceedings. The right is a facet of the presumption of innocence which in turn dictates that the burden of proving guilt rests exclusively on the prosecution. Compelling an accused to testify in his own defence is inconsistent with that burden.

The defendant, Huang Ruifang, was arrested at Hong Kong International Airport carrying two suitcases containing cans of liquid later found to be approximately 4,770 grammes of co***ne. In her police interview, she claimed she did not know the cans contained drugs, believing them to be Acai juice.
At trial, the sole issue was whether she knew she was carrying drugs. Huang exercised her right to silence by choosing not to testify and calling no defence witnesses. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on her police interview, which they argued contained inconsistencies.

During closing submissions, the prosecutor made two remarks that directly referred to her silence. He told the jury: “the fact remains the defendant did not give evidence.” He then added: “I did not have the opportunity to cross‑examine the defendant … I cannot ask her any questions … because she elected not to give evidence.” Although defence counsel objected before the remarks were made, the trial judge allowed them and did not give a corrective direction.

Section 54(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221 (“CPO”) provides that:
“(1) Every person charged with an offence, whether charged solely or jointly with any other person, shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings:
Provided as follows—
(b) the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution…”.
The Court of Final Appeal unanimously held that these remarks violated section 54(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which imposes an “absolute prohibition” on any comment by the prosecution on an accused’s failure to give evidence.
The court ruled that the trial judge’s failure to stop the comments and to correct them amounted to a material irregularity. The conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.

This case confirms that the right to silence at trial is not merely a formality but a substantive protection. The prosecution cannot, in any form, comment on an accused’s decision not to testify.

13/03/2026

HKMA’s 2026 Fintech Promotion Blueprint suggests a regulatory pivot from fintech enthusiasm to fintech governance. Advanced AI and DLT remain central, but the architecture around them now matters just as much: data excellence, cyber resilience, quantum readiness, and institutional capability. For lawyers and compliance professionals, this is less about whether innovation will continue, and more about the standards by which it will be supervised.

Hong Kong’s financial regulator has released a new Blueprint under “Fintech 2030,” aimed at responsible innovation and the next phase of fintech advancement. The framework focuses on advanced AI and DLT, supported by high-performance computing, and is built around two foundations: data excellence and cyber resilience.

The most legally interesting features are its four flagship projects: a Quantum Preparedness Index for post-quantum cryptography readiness, a New Risk Data Strategy to strengthen banks’ data governance and analytics capability, an industry-led Fintech Cybersecurity Baseline for fintech providers, and competency-development support focused on human-machine interaction.

Taken together, the Blueprint suggests that the next chapter of fintech regulation in Hong Kong will be defined by measurable preparedness, stronger governance expectations, and a closer integration of innovation policy with supervisory risk management.

27/02/2026

A Milestone in Biotechnology Litigation: Diagcor Bioscience Incorp Ltd v Chan Wai Hon Billy & Ors [2026] HKCFI 488

The Court of First Instance has recently delivered a definitive judgment in a 23-day liability trial that marks a significant advancement in Hong Kong’s adjudication of complex biotechnological disputes. Presided over by Mr Justice Lok, this case serves as an essential authority on the intersection of proprietary DNA technology, trade secret misappropriation, and professional negligence.

At the heart of the litigation was Diagcor Bioscience, a pre-eminent provider of molecular screening services. The primary cause of action concerned a Breach of Confidence involving the defendants—former senior employees and their competing entities—who were alleged to have misappropriated proprietary Y-chromosome markers and PCR primer sequences to expedite the launch of a rival fetal gender screening test ("Y-Test").
The Court’s analysis of the Trade Secret claim is particularly instructive. Recognizing the inherent difficulty in proving the theft of biochemical substances incapable of direct visual comparison, the Court relied upon inferential evidence. A critical "tell-tale sign of copying" was identified: the defendants’ genetic marker "MK15" was found to be identical to Diagcor’s "FM01," specifically replicating subtle, non-public modifications made to academic sequences. In the absence of contemporaneous R&D documentation—which the defendants implausibly claimed were lost due to computer failure—the Court rejected the defense of "independent development" as highly improbable.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed Professional Negligence regarding an erroneous alpha-thalassemia screening report ("Alpha-Test"). The Court held a senior laboratory technologist liable in both contract and tort for failing to identify a glaring anomaly in a gel electrophoresis photograph—an "obvious error" that led to a faulty clinical report and subsequent economic loss for the plaintiff.

Beyond the substantive findings, this case highlights a sophisticated procedural innovation: the "Technical Briefing." By convening a specialized session for expert witnesses to guide the Court through the underlying DNA technology prior to the trial, the judiciary ensured that the legal conclusions were grounded in rigorous scientific accuracy.

This landmark decision underscores the Hong Kong IP judiciary’s robust capacity to adjudicate cutting-edge biotechnology disputes, reinforcing the legal protections afforded to proprietary research in a rapidly evolving sector.

30/01/2026

The Coroners and Inquest in Hong Kong: The 2026 Lamma Inquest in Focus

The Lamma Inquest mainly involves five parties, namely the Next of Kin, The Marine Department (“MD”), Cheoy Lee Shipyards Limited (“CLS”), The HongKong Electric Company (“HK Electric”) and Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry Limited (“HKKF”). The parties have contended on six issues relevant to the inquest, including the intention of CLS to build watertight bulkheads, liability for damage stability calculations, attachment of Port Hull Bow Plating, coaming height requirement, inspection of bulkheads and working hours of seafarers.

In relation to these six issues, the Court has not found any breaches and liabilities on MD, CLS, HK Electric and HKKF. However, the Court has provided a range of recommendations to the deficiencies exposed by the inquest, which are detailed as follows:-

MD to continue regular engagement with counterparties, implementing a declaration system, consulting major ferry operators identifying fatigue risks, and continuing to use the Local Vessels Advisory Committee for ongoing discussions of seafarers’ working hours and rest arrangements.

CLS, alongside similar shipyards constructing Class 1 Vessels, to notify MD of any alterations after construction approval, as well as adopting a formal Inspection and Test Plan, maintenance and implementation of a clear and updated organisational chart, document control system and a central archive of relevant documents.

HK Electric to establish a formal Vessel Acceptance and Handover Procedure to ensure that every new vessel is independently verified for compliance with contractual specifications and Marine Department-approved drawings.

HKKF, alongside similar licenced ferry operators, to manage employees’ fatigue through periodic briefings, open channels for report, implementation of routine feedback gathering process and regular navigation and radar training to reinforce safe operating practices.

Lastly, the Court has stated the inconsistency of opinions given by the Senior Surveyor with respect to the aforementioned 0.1L Rule. The contradiction raises serious questions to the truthfulness of the evidence provided by the witness. Consequently, the Court has referred this matter to the Department of Justice for further action at its discretion.

16/01/2026

Legal Update: Banking (Amendment) Ordinance (Cap. 155)

The Banking (Amendment) Ordinance (Cap. 155) introduced a voluntary framework for banks to share suspicious account information with law enforcement (e.g., HKPF & Customs) to combat money laundering and fraud, allowing for faster interception of illicit funds via secure platforms designated by the HKMA.

Purpose of such amendment

The 2025 amendment allows the legal agencies and banks to collectively combat the rising trend of digital fraud by bridging the information gap. Relevant frauds include Prohibited Conducts like money laundering, terrorists financing, and financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Examples of information that could be exchanged include information without obtaining consent from the relevant parties on:

I) Corporate and individual account who may be linked to the suspected crime (Bank Account numbers, personal data (name, date of birth, Hong Kong, Identity Card number), of the customer in question, the counterparties, and beneficial owner; or connected parties of the customer;

II) Associated counterparts of the relevant transaction; and

III) Details of relevant transactions or activities that may be involved in the Prohibited Conduct.

Required Conditions to request sharing of information without seeking consent from the relevant parties first

I) When the institutions have reasonable grounds to believe that the relevant accounts are involved in some illegal activities such as Prohibited Conduct as stated previously, i.e. money laundering, terrorists financing, and financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

II) When the relevant parties have reasonable grounds to believe that seeking consent would prejudice their ability to make such inquiry.

Conditions you should fulfill if you were to disclose information

The regulators have reasonable grounds to believe that:-

I) the information is relevant or helpful to the request; and

II) seeking consent would prejudice the requesting parties' ability to make inquiry.

Confidentiality requirements

I) Notice that as the disclosing party, the fact that information has been disclosed should never be revealed to another party except a JFIU officer, the MA, or a designated platform operator.

II) As for the requesting party, disclosure of the name of the disclosing institution, or any information that allows it to be identified should be prohibited without prior consentIf the authorised institution disclosed any information disclosed is inaccurate, the correction must be made aware as soon as possible.

III) Generally, all these exchanging of information (including correction of information) could only be operated under a designated platform of the Monetary Authority. The exchanging parties need to observe the guidelines and directions from the Monetary Authority.

IV) If there is a necessity to align with the exceptions, a written approval from the HKMA is needed.

Formalities requirements of a request

I) State that it fulfills the conditions as stated above.

II) Identify the entity, account or transaction that is the subject of the request, and the purpose for the request of disclosure.

III) State the reason it believes that the requested information is helpful to the inquiry.

Disclosure on its own initiative

The disclosing institution could also disclose on its own.Conditions for self-initiated disclosure are, namely:

I) Having reasonable grounds to indicate the entity or accounts may be involved in prohibited conduct;

II) Reasonable Contemplation from the institution that it may assist the receiving institution in detecting prohibited conducts; and

III) Consent that would prejudice inquiry.

Protection for the authorised institution making the disclosure

If the disclosure is made in good faith and reasonable care and complying with all the requirements, the authority will be protected against some statutory offences. Relevant examples of the statutory offences are:

I) Section 25A(5) of the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (Cap. 405);

II) Section 25A(5) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455); and

III) Section 14(6) of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575).

The authority is also free of any obligation of confidence owed, potential liability arising from contract, enactment, rule of conduct or other provision as well as potential damages for any loss because of the disclosure.

29/11/2025

City University of Hong Kong Law Review: Statement of Condolence on the Tai Po Tragic Fire
香港城市大學法律期刊就「大埔宏福苑五級大火」發表哀悼聲明

31/10/2025

In K (by his next friend, “R”) (Applicant) v Secretary for Justice (“SJ”) (Respondent) & “B” (1st Interested Party) & The Chief Executive of the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China (“CE”) (2nd Interested Party) [2025] HKCFI 1974, the court explored the constitutional recognition of genetic mother’s parental status in a same s*x marriage. The Applicant, a child (K), was represented by R, the child’s genetic mother, who is part of a female same-s*x couple married in South Africa. The applicants sought constitutional recognition of the genetic mother’s parental status, arguing that the existing laws violated rights to privacy, equality, and family life under the Basic Law (“BL”) (Articles 4, 25, and 39) and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR”) (Articles 14, 19, 20, 22, 25).

The case concerns the legal recognition of parental status in Hong Kong for a child born to a female same-s*x couple via Reciprocal In Vitro Fertilisation (“RIVF”).
It was brought by a female same-s*x couple married in South Africa who conceived a child via RIVF. Under the Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap. 429) (“PCO”) and the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance (Cap. 174) (“BDRO”), only the gestational mother was recognised as a legal parent, leaving the genetic mother—despite her biological connection and active parenting role—without official parental status. They brought the judicial review to challenge the constitutionality of section 6 and Part V of PCO and Form 1 in Schedule 2 of BDRO, as well as the Government’s decision not to register the genetic mother pursuant to section 4(3) of the BDRO.

The court considered the following issues:
1. Effect of a prior declaration made by CFI that R is K’s “parent at common law.”
2. Whether the laws and the decision violate rights under the BL Art 4, 5 and 39 and BOR Art 14, 19, 20, 22 and 25.
3. Whether such restrictions were justified.
4. Whether there was unlawful discrimination.

The Court ruled in favour of the Applicant. The Court held that the earlier declaration —which recognised R as K’s “parent at common law”—was effectively meaningless for judicial and practical purposes. It merely confirmed an existing situation rather than creating any legal status.

The provisions unjustifiably discriminated against families formed by same-s*x couples and deprived both parents and child of privacy, identity, and equality rights protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The laws fail the proportionality and justification tests, as denying legal parenthood to R lacks a legitimate aim and disproportionately harms the child’s right to recognition and development of relationships with both parents, and creates social and practical disadvantages. The Court rejected the Government’s claim that the guardianship or adoption regimes were sufficient substitutes for legal parental recognition. The Court found that the measure failed to achieve a fair balance between its societal advantages and the extent to which it infringed upon the rights of those affected.

This is a significant development for same-s*x couples and children of same-s*x couples recognition in Hong Kong. However, it remains uncertain on how wide the scope would apply in a specific factual scenario. Also, despite declaring proper basis for relief and successful constitutional challenge, the relief is yet to be finalised, with further argument on what relief and how the birth certificate/register should be amended remains.

Disclaimer: The content herein is intended for general information and educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.

17/10/2025

In K v Secretary for Environment and Ecology and Secretary for Justice [2025] HKCFI 3170, the Court examined the constitutionality of certain provisions under the Public Conveniences (Conduct and Behaviour) Regulation (Cap. 132BL) (“PCCBR”), which make it an offence for a “female person” to enter any part of a public convenience allocated for “male persons” (and vice versa). The Applicant, a female-to-male transgender person, challenged the validity of these provisions on both constitutional and interpretive grounds.

In this judicial review, the Court’s task was to determine whether Regulations 7 and 10 of the PCCBR, by denying transgender persons the right to use public toilets consistent with their gender identity, contravened the right to equality, freedom from discrimination and right to privacy guaranteed under Article 25 of the Basic Law (“BL”) and Articles 1(1), 14 and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR”).

The Applicant argued that the PCCBR’s strict male–female distinction unlawfully discriminated against transgender individuals and violated their privacy rights. It was further submitted that a remedial construction should be adopted, such that the word “male” in Regulation 7 of the PCCBR includes female-to-male transgender persons who are (i) medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria and (ii) required to undergo Real-Life Experience as male as part of their treatment.

The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that “male” and “female” under the PCCBR refer to a person’s biological s*x at birth, subject only to formal change upon amendment of the gender marker on the Hong Kong Identity Card. It further justified the restriction on grounds of protecting the privacy interests of other bathroom users under BOR 14, as well as maintaining social norms and public expectations regarding gendered facilities.

The Court held that the existing policy, which required transgender persons to undergo full s*x reassignment surgery (“SRS”) before changing the gender marker on their Hong Kong Identity Card, violated the Applicant’s right to privacy under BOR 14 and was therefore unconstitutional.

The Court further ruled that it is unconstitutional to require individuals to use public conveniences according to their assigned or biological s*x at birth, finding that Regulations 7 and 10 of the PCCBR, as properly construed, contravened BL 25, BOR 1(1), BOR 14 and BOR 22.

However, the Court declined to adopt the Applicant’s proposed remedial construction that would define “male” by reference to the gender on the Hong Kong Identity Card, on the ground that such reform is a matter for the Legislature. Consequently, the Court declared Regulations 7 and 10 unconstitutional but suspended the effects of the declaration for 12 months, to allow the Respondent time to enact appropriate legislation to remedy the unconstitutionality.

Disclaimer: The content herein is intended for general information and educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.

21/01/2025

In Hong Kong Golf Club v Director of Environmental Protection & Government of the Hong Kong SAR, by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (interested party), HCAL 1258/2023; [2024] HKCFI 1279, the Judge discussed the environmental impact assessment under a judicial review challenge by the Hong Kong Golf Club in great length under the statutory regime of Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) (“EIAO”), in particular sections 4 to 8 of Part II (Environmental Impact Assessment), sections 9 to 14 of Part III (Environmental Permits), section 16 of Part V (Technical Memorandum) and Schedule 1 (Interpretation) of the EIAO.

In this judicial review challenge, the Court’s task is to determine whether there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of the technical memorandum and study brief under section 8 of EIAO. The court took the view that, nevertheless both the study brief and technical memorandum under the environmental impact assessment are not legislative instruments; they are expressed to impose duties and prescribe procedures. Further, the court held that whether the environmental impact assessment report fulfills the requirements of the technical memorandum and study brief had to be determined objectively. In that regard, the aforesaid provisions must be properly construed and understood. Also, the Court will be looking to see if the relevant environmental impact assessment report is comprehensive and objective so as to alert the decision-maker and the public in carrying out that particular activity or not.

The Applicant, being the Golf Club, contends that the decision made by the decision issued by Environmental Protection Department being unlawful as it did not fulfill the intentions of the EIAO and that the relevant assessment must be made by looking at the project as a coherent whole with overall environmental acceptability. In view of that, the Judge quashed the said decision and reverted the process back to the position that it was before the said decision.

07/11/2024

The Editorial Board for the City University of Hong Kong Law Review is pleased to announce a call for submission of papers for Volume 10 of the Law Review that will be published in 2025.

Founded in 2009, the City University of Hong Kong Law Review is a student-edited, peer-reviewed academic law journal published by the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong. The CityU Law Review has been to generate articles, case notes and book reviews, on recent legal developments in Hong Kong, other Asian counterparts and the International arena. Towards its end, CityU Law Review has published works by a variety of professors from Hong Kong and Singapore, as well as students from local and overseas. It has a varied readership and can be accessed on Westlaw and HeinOnline.

City University of Hong Kong Law Review

27/03/2026

13/03/2026

27/02/2026

30/01/2026

16/01/2026

29/11/2025

31/10/2025

17/10/2025

21/01/2025

07/11/2024

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The University

Shortcuts

Share

Category