Year of Call (HK): 2011

CEDR Accredited Mediator (2011)

PCLL, University of Hong Kong (2009)

LLB, University of Exeter (2008)

School Manager, Yan Chai Hospital Wong Wha San Secondary School

Member of the Legal Aid Panel (Civil and Criminal Law)

Member of the Duty Lawyer Service Panel

Member of the Convention Against Torture Scheme Panel

Member of the Free Legal Advice Scheme

Criminal 

Appeals

HKSAR v LEE  (D4) (CACC239/2011) – (Conspiracy to Defraud)

Appeals against conviction and sentencing review by the prosecution. Acting for the 4th Appellant (led by Mr Edwin CHOY, SC) at the appeal hearing. At the material time, the 4th Appellant was an employee of Gransing. Legal issues include whether the placing arrangement between Convoy, Gransing, and Convoy Securities involved connected persons, connected transactions, or fraudulent transactions and whether Convoy has any disclosure obligations under the Listing Rules. The Court of Appeal noted that the placing arrangement between Convoy, Gransing, and Convoy Securities was not a sham transaction and the prosecution could not prove that they had fraudulent intent. The Court of Appeal held that the agreement between Convoy and Gransing was legal and valid and that there was no substantive agreement between the 1st Defendant and Gransing, so the prosecution's allegations were not substantiated, and the 4th Appellant's appeal was allowed.

HKSAR v Lin  (HCMA 15/2022) - (Forgery, Using a false instrument, Making a false representation to an Immigration) 

Karen represented the Appellant in an appeal that overturned his conviction and sentence, with the key issue being the admissibility of fresh evidence including a psychiatric report and medical reports from Mainland China, resulting in a retrial being ordered.

HKSAR v Chan (CACC 60/2022) - (S.17 Wounding with intent, Common Assault)

Acting for the appellant (led by Mr Selwyn Yu, SC). The appellant was sentenced to 14 and a half years imprisonment for biting off the left ear of then-District Councillor Chiu Ka-yin and assaulting three other passers-by during the 2019 anti-extradition protests. One of the legal issues included the amount of civil claims in the original judgment amounting to $3.93 million, which was a rare amount of damages, and the appellant needed to sell his residence to pay this amount, showing his good faith and whether the sentence should be deducted. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge should not have excluded the mitigating factor simply because the award was attributable to the appellant, and therefore ruled that the appellant's appeal to sentence was allowed.

HKSAR v So (CACC 175/2019) [2021] HKCA 179, Reported in: [2021] 1 HKLRD 1215 - (Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs) 

Karen acted for the Appellant in a successful appeal against the sentence. On the issue of whether this was a case deserving of an enhancement, and whether to add up the individual enhancements for a series of aggravating factors without applying the totality principle is appropriate.

HKSAR v Li (HCMA 617/2018) [2021] HKCFI 148 - (Fraud)

Karen appeared for the Appellant at trial and on appeal. His conviction was quashed on appeal with costs (including trial).

Bribery and Corruption

HKSAR v Ma (D3) (DCCC 187 & 1112/2021) [2023] HKDC 181 - (Conspiracy to Steal)

The ICAC prosecuted 10 former employees of two Japanese ramen shops for conspiracy to steal cash proceeds and accepting bribes, with Karen successfully representing D3, a part-time waitress who was acquitted after trial due to issues involving her alleged role in the crime and the interpretation of her video interview.

HKSAR v Li & others (CACC 425/2015) - (Conspiracy to defraud)

Karen represented the 1st Appellant (led by Mr. K.M. Chong), the developer, for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This is in an unprecedented case of prosecuting “tou ding” (套丁).  The ICAC has charged the small house developer and 11 indigenous villagers with conspiracy to defraud the Lands Department and bribes, over a small house project in the New Territories.

HKSAR v Wong (DCCC 1092/2017) - (Conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages, Conspiracy to defraud)

Karen represented the 1st defendant, a pharmaceutical sales representative, in a trial involving the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, with issues related to principal/agent relationship, acceptance of an advantage, and whether the matters were in relation to the principal's affairs or business, due to the defendant purchasing drugs from his clients (doctors) and selling them to the second defendant (the pharmacy proprietor).

HKSAR v Tsang (WKCC 2347/2017) - (Disclosing the identity of a person being investigated under s.30(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance)

Karen represented the 3rd Defendant, who was the mother of the 1st Defendant, in a trial where the main issue was whether the mother's act of asking her son and disclosing about an ICAC investigation on the son's vehicle registration plates, fell within the definition of s.30(1)(a) of POBO.

Fraud and Money Laundering

HKSAR v CHAN  (D1) (DCCC 242/2019) – (Fraud)

The case involved financial investment fraud. Karen represented the 1st Defendant in the trial, and the issue in the case was whether the evidence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to prove that the 1st Defendant intended to induce the victim to invest or benefit from it. The court ultimately found that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the 1st Defendant had directly participated in the deceptive act during the material period, or had the subjective intent to deliberately deceive, and acquitted the 1st Defendant.

HKSAR v. Kwok (DCCC 348/2021) [2022] HKDC 1146 - (Conspiracy to Steal)

Karen represented the 2nd Defendant in a trial where the Prosecution alleges that D1 and D2 conspired to steal cash from Bitcoin ATMs by cancelling Bitcoin transactions after they received cash from the ATMs. involving complex Bitcoin transaction issues, including expert evidence on RBF methods and mining fees.

HKSAR v Ip (HCCP 707/2020) - (Money Laundering, Letter of Request)

The Secretary of Justice applied to the Court of First Instance to issue a Letter of Request to the Supreme People’s Court of the Mainland for assistance in obtaining evidence from the prosecution witnesses in Mainland China. Karen acted for the 3rd Respondent in resisting the application. After the Respondents filed their respective affirmations and skeleton submissions, the Secretary of Justice withdrew its application. 

HKSAR v Kwok (DCCC 122/2018) - (Fraud)

Karen represented the defendant accused of Remittance Fraud. The defendant was acquitted of all the charges against him after trial due to issues involving the identity of the defendant.

HKSAR v Chung (KTCC 2468/2017) - (Obtaining property by deception)

Karen represented the defendant in a case where the victim accused the defendant of defrauding her into purchasing healthcare machines. The defendant was acquitted after trial due to credibility issues involving the victim.

HKSAR v Lee  (STCC 1909/2016) - (Theft)

Karen represented the defendant for trial, where the employer of the Defendant accused the Defendant of marking up prices to their client and stealing money from his employer. The defendant was acquitted after trial due to credibility issues involving his client.

HKSAR v Lee (STCC 3135/2016) - (Conspiracy to defraud)

Karen represented the defendant for trial, the defendant was accused of arranging a bogus marriage between a Hong Kong resident and a Mainland female. The defendant was acquitted after trial due to the issue involving whether the defendant had the necessary knowledge.

Dangerous Drugs related

HKSAR v Law (HCCC 229/2020) - (Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs)

Karen appeared for the defendant in an 8-day High Court Jury Trial involving the trafficking of 22,611 grams of Cocaine, with issues related to DNA and Fingerprint evidence, as well as the chain of evidence. The Defendant was acquitted by the jury by a 6-1 majority verdict.

HKSAR v So (D3) (DCCC 77/2020) [2023] HKDC 584 - (Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, Possession in Dangerous Drugs)

Karen appeared for the 3rd Defendant in a 30-day District Court Trial. involving an undercover operation in 2015, with issues related to the chain of evidence of the alleged drugs and the credibility of the undercover police officer and his handler. The 3rd Defendant was acquitted of all the charges after trial,

HKSAR v Wong  (HCCC 201/2020) - (Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs) 

Karen appeared for the defendant in a 7-day High Court Jury Trial related to the collection of a parcel containing dangerous drugs from a delivery service center. The jury unanimously acquitted the Defendant.

HKSAR v Lam  (CACC 152/2021, DCCC 824/2020) - (Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs)

Karen represented the Defendant in both trial and appeal, with the main issues being whether the Defendant was in possession of the dangerous drugs for self-consumption or for the purpose of trafficking. 

Violence related

HKSAR v Wong  (WKCC 4070/2024) – (Common Assault)

Karen represented the defendant at trial. The victim and the defendant were colleagues of the company but belonged to different departments. The victim alleged that while the victim was working at his desk, the defendant yelled at the victim and attacked the victim from behind. The defendant denied assault and after trial, the defendant was acquitted.

HKSAR v Yuk (D3) (FLCC 226/2022) - (Throwing object on the railway with intent to endanger passengers）

Karen represented the 3rd Defendant for trial. The Prosecution alleges that D1-D4 responded to the Internet Call in November 2019, causing traffic gridlock and objects-throwing at a railway in Sheung Shui. Issues involving disputes over the identity of D3 and the chain of evidence. The 3rd Defendant was acquitted of all the charges after trial,

HKSAR v Kan (KCCC 995/2020) - (Assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm)

Karen represented a defendant accused of assaulting her domestic helper, and the defendant was acquitted after trial due to issues related to the credibility of the domestic helper's testimony, with costs granted to the defendant.

HKSAR v Chung (D3) (DCCC 325/2019) - (Acting as a Member of a triad society)

Karen appeared for the 3rd Defendant in a 34-day District Court Trial. involving an undercover operation in 2014, with issues related to the credibility of the undercover police officer and his handler. The 3rd Defendant was acquitted of all the charges after trial,

HKSAR v Tsoi (KTCC 1892/2019) - (Common Assault)

Karen represented the 2nd Defendant accused of assaulting onlookers while walking past a Lennon Wall set up by some protestors outside Kwun Tong MTR Station, with issues relating to the appropriateness of dock identification, the identity of the Defendant, and the credibility of the victims, resulting in the defendant's acquittal after trial.

HKSAR v Chan (ESCC 2187/2017) - (Criminal Intimidation)

Karen represented the defendant in a trial where contradictory testimony between the victim and CCTV footage led to the defendant's acquittal of criminal intimidation of a reporter from Oriental Daily News, with costs granted to the defendant after the successful submission of No Case To Answer.

HKSAR v Yu (KTCC 845/2018) - (Criminal intimidation)

Karen represented the defendant in a trial. involving a dispute over parking manners with the victim, with issues related to the credibility of the victim, and the defendant was acquitted after trial.

HKSAR v Chong (KTCC 550/2015) - (Assaulting Police Officer)

Karen represented the defendant in a trial where the defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer during the Occupy Central Movement activities, with issues related to the credibility of victims and police officers, and the defendant was acquitted with costs granted.

HKSAR v Chung (KTCC 1517/2019) - (Assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm) 

Karen represented the defendant in a trial involving disputes with her neighbour, with issues related to whether the defendant was acting in self-defence, and the defendant was acquitted after the trial.

HKSAR v Wong (WKCC 4368/2018) - (Assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm)

Karen represented the defendant in a case involving a dispute between employees of two garages over parking problems, with the main issue being whether the defendant's actions were acting in self-defence at the time, and the defendant was acquitted after trial.

HKSAR v Chan  (TMCC 2848/2016) - (Claiming to be a member of a triad society, Assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm)

Karen represented the defendant in a trial where she challenged the expert evidence of a Triad Expert and the evidence of the victim, resulting in the defendant's acquittal on all charges after trial, due to the court's rejection of the expert evidence and finding the victim’s evidence to be incredible and unreliable.

HKSAR v Lau  (ESCC 2918/2016) - (Common Assault, Assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm)

Karen represented the defendant in a trial where the victim alleged assault over home issues, with the issues involving the credibility of the victim. The Defendant was acquittal after trial.

Sexual Offences

HKSAR v Hui (KCCC 1266/2021) – (Indecent Assault x 8 counts)

Karen acted for the defendant involving indecently assaulting his daughter’s domestic helper, the defendant was acquitted after trial due to the court found that the domestic helper’s testimony was incredible following costs granted to the Defendant.

Immigration Offences

HKSAR v Tsui (STCC 3678/2019) – (Aiding and Abetting, counselling, or procuring the breach of condition of stay)

Karen represented a defendant with disabilities in a trial where the defendant was charged with aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring his 7-year-old daughter in contravention of her condition of stay in Hong Kong, with challenges to the admissibility of the defendant's cautioned statement resulting in the court ruling it inadmissible, and the defendant's subsequent acquittal after trial due to the prosecution's failure to prove the defendant's relevant intention beyond a reasonable doubt.

HKSAR v Zhao (D1) - (STCC 3797/2016) - (Breach of Stay - working)

Karen represented the 1st Defendant in a trial where the admissibility of the cautioned statement was challenged, resulting in the court ruling the statements to be involuntary and inadmissible, leading to the Defendant's subsequent acquittal due to the prosecution's inability to prove her employment at the material time.

HKSAR v B.A. (D2) (STCC 3048/2016) – (Taking employment while being a person in respect of whom a removal order is in force)

Karen represented the 2nd Defendant in a trial where the admissibility of the Defendant's cautioned statement was challenged, resulting in the court ruling the statements to be involuntary and inadmissible, leading to the Defendant's subsequent acquittal due to the prosecution's inability to prove her employment at the material time.

Customs-related cases

HKSAR v WONG (FLCC1313/2022) – (Dealing with Goods Offences to which the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance applies - illicit cigarettes)

Karen represented the 5th Defendant in the trial. The fifth defendant and two other defendants were intercepted by Customs and Excise Department at a flat in an industrial building and about 5.4 million cigarettes were seized from the unit. The issue in the case was whether the 5th Defendant had knowledge of the unpaid duty cigarettes in the unit. After trial, the defendant was acquitted.

Road Traffic related offences

HKSAR v Lee  (FLCC 97/2023) - (Dangerous Driving causing GBH)

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where the Defendant offered to plead guilty to "Careless Driving", which was not accepted by the prosecution. The Defendant was acquitted of the charge of dangerous driving after trial and was convicted of a lesser charge of careless driving. 

HKSAR v Cheng (KCS 24970/2023) - (Careless Driving)

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where the case involved a collision between the defendant's vehicle and the rear vehicle that occurred when the defendant drove out of the parked position. The Defendant was acquitted of the charge of dangerous driving after trial.

HKSAR v Chan  (TMS 7361/2020) - (Dangerous Driving)

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where the Defendant offered to plead guilty to "Careless Driving", which was not accepted by the prosecution. The Defendant was acquitted of "Dangerous driving" after trial and convicted of a lesser charge of "Careless driving". 

HKSAR v Chan  (KCS 20759/2020) - (Careless Driving)

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where the case involved a collision between two vehicles that turned left at the same time. The Defendant was acquitted after trial.

HKSAR v Sung  (KCS 42/2018) - (Careless Driving)

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where issues involved the use of a Spiral Roundabout. The Defendant was acquitted after trial.

HKSAR v Wong  (ESS 22903/2017) - (Careless Driving) 

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where issues involved whether the Defendant had failed to pay due care and attention to the stationary of a dog. The Defendant was acquitted after trial.

HKSAR v Wong (FLS 826/2019) - (Careless Driving)

Karen represented the Defendant in a trial where the case involved the traffic sign of Turn Right ONLY. The Defendant was acquitted after trial.

Bail Application in High Court

HKSAR v Chan (HCCP 487/2023) (DCCC526/2023)

The Defendant has been charged with “Blackmail”. For his first appearance in magistracy court, the defendant was granted court bail on the condition of not leaving Hong Kong. A few months after the case has been set down for trial, the Defendant was arrested while he was attempting to leave Hong Kong for Macau, and his bail was refused by the Magistrate. Karen applied for bail in the High Court on behalf of the defendant. Ultimately, the defendant was granted bail.

HKSAR v Sun (HCCP 447/2023)

The Defendant has been charged with “Money Laundering” of HK$2.5 Million. Bail was refused on the defendant’s first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court due to the Defendant has lack of local ties. Karen applied for bail in the High Court on behalf of the defendant. Ultimately, the defendant was granted bail.

HKSAR v Wong (HCCP 192/2021)

The Defendant has been charged with “Theft” and the stolen amount involved was HK$3.8 Million. Bail was refused on the defendant’s first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court due to the seriousness of the offence and the high risk of absconding. Karen applied for bail in the High Court on behalf of the defendant. Ultimately, the defendant was granted bail.

HKSAR v Fong  (HCCP 354/2019)

The defendant was charged with “trafficking 3,500 grams of ketamine”. Bail was refused on the defendant’s first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court due to the serious nature of the case, the substantial amount of drugs involved, and the high risk of absconding. Karen applied for bail in the High Court on behalf of the defendant. Ultimately, the defendant was granted bail.

HKSAR v Lee (HCCP 93/2018)

The defendant was charged with “trafficking 40,000 grams of cannabis”. Bail was refused on the defendant’s first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court due to the serious nature of the case, the tremendous amount of drugs involved, and the high risk of absconding. Karen applied for bail in the High Court on behalf of the defendant. Ultimately, the defendant was granted bail.

CIVIL

Judicial Review and Administrative Law

ASGHAR IBRAR v Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration (HCAL9/2016)

In a case against the Immigration Department and the Torture Claim Appeal Board, Karen successfully obtained leave to appeal and all the reliefs sought were granted with cost in the end.

Mareva Injunctions

Smart-Trans Logistics Limited v AGBO Obyebuchi Stanley trading as Y & Y Company (HCA1900/2016) – (contractual disputes)

Represented the Plaintiff in a successful injunction restraining the defendant from removing or disposing of or diminishing the value of his assets. 

Silver Lead Holdings Limited, Loo Car Chun and Woo Chun Shun, Billy, trading as "P & T Hair" v TSE Man Fung v MA Hing Mo (HCA17/2017) – (Trespass)

Represented for the Plaintiffs in a successful injunction restraining the defendants from installing a huge signboard covering the entirety of the Plaintiff's’ signboard and the windows.

Employee Compensation

WONG San Fat v Hypercube Interior Design Limited (R1) and Sam Ho Engineering Co operated by LUI Kwong Sum (R2) (DCEC2176/2017)

Represented the Applicant. An application taken out by the applicant against the 1st and 2nd respondents under sections 9, 10, and 10A of the Employee’s Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282 for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained while in the course of employment with the 2nd Respondent. Application granted against 2nd Respondent with costs.

Lands Tribunal

Tony Chan v Leung Kit Yee Kitty (LDPD2423/2014) – (landlord and tenant disputes)

Represented the landlord and successfully recovered possession of the premises from the tenant.

The Incorporated Owners of Fanling Centre v Wong Yu Ting Terence and Tsang Suk Han (LDBM 28/2013) – (breach of DMC)

Represented the Respondent. Issues involved the Incorporated Owners alleged that the Defendant being the owner of the rooftop of the Building had installed 3 antennas on the rooftop which was in breach of the terms of the Deed of Mutual Covenant.

Interlocutory Hearings

Smart-Trans Logistics Limited v AGBO Obyebuchi Stanley trading as Y & Y Company (HCA1900/2016) – (contractual disputes)

Represented Plaintiff in a successful summary judgment (Order 14) application.

Chan Tin Chu & Sons Company Limited v Wong Man Chun & Ors. (HCA613/2016) – (land disputes on village houses, trust)

Represented Plaintiff and successfully resisted an application for security for costs taken out by Defendants.

CHIU San San Esther trading as Classic Design & Decoration Engineering Co CLASSIC DESIGN & DECORATION ENGINEERING CO v Tsui Yuk Sau (DCCJ597/2018) – (contractual disputes)

Represented the Defendant in a successful setting aside default judgment application.

Smart-Trans Logistics Limited v Obiegbu Prince Jerry Jay trading as “Best Air Cargo & Shipping Services co. Hong Kong” (DCCJ 702/2015) -– (contractual disputes)

Represented the Plaintiff in resisting the setting aside default judgment application taken out by the defendant.