Hong Kong Lawyer

March 2017

Issue link: https://asianlegalbusiness.uberflip.com/i/795522

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 5 of 107

EDITOR'S NOTE 編 者 的 話 Cynthia G. Claytor 《香港律師》編輯 Legal Media Group 湯森路透 cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com The joint enterprise doctrine was established by the Privy Council in 1985 in the Hong Kong case of Chan Wing Siu [1985] 1 AC 168. In that case, Mr. Chan was part of a gang who went into a house to commit robbery. During the robbery, his fellow gang member stabbed the victim to death. While it was clear that Mr. Chan did not kill the victim himself, the Privy Council upheld his conviction for murder, holding that for an accomplice to be guilty of murder, the prosecution need only establish that he could foresee what resulted as a possible consequence of the common design being carried out. While this has been the common law position in both Hong Kong and England & Wales for over three decades, the UK Supreme Court recently abolished the doctrine in Jogee ([2016] UKSC 8), holding Chan Wing Siu took a wrong turning and that the introduction of the doctrine was based on an incomplete and erroneous reading of the case law, coupled with generalised and questionable policy arguments. When invited to follow the UKSC's Jogee decision in Chan Kam Shing, FACC 5/2016, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal declined, holding Chan Wing Siu had not taken any "wrong turning". To understand the CFA's holding in Chan Kam Shing, take a look at the Criminal Law feature (p. 34). Elsewhere in the March issue, the Family Law piece (p. 40) examines the recent YBL v LWC, CACV 244/2015 decision, in which the Court of Appeal comprehensively reviewed the judgment summons procedure under r. 87 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules (Cap. 179A), holding that certain features of the procedure were incompatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383); this article concludes by highlighting a number of important changes to the judgment summons procedure that will flow from this decision. Also included is the On China feature (p. 46), which provides an overview of existing regulatory structures in the EU and US that may be implicated by Chinese outbound investment. The authors of this piece offer useful tips on how to minimise deal-related regulatory risks, which seem particularly relevant given the growing demand of Chinese outbound investment in the EU in recent years. Also, for readers leading small to medium-sized firms, the Practice Management section (p. 72), which is the first installment of a two-part series, may be a piece worth reading. This installment highlights a series of strategic and operational considerations for small and medium-sized firm leaders and how these are changing with intensifying competition in Hong Kong. The second installment will explore what law firm leaders need to do, including moving from cash flow management to revenue generation as an outgrowth of this and a structural shift in organisational mindset. 4 www.hk-lawyer.org •  March 2017 Cynthia G. Claytor Editor, Hong Kong Lawyer Legal Media Group Thomson Reuters cynthia.claytor@thomsonreuters.com 「共同計劃原則」是由樞密院於一九八五年就香港Chan Wing Siu [1985] 1 AC 168號案件確立。在這宗案件中, 陳先生是一個闖入房子進行搶劫的匪幫的其中一人。在搶 劫期間,他的同夥把受害人刺傷致死。即使顯然陳先生本 人並沒有殺害受害人,但樞密院維持他對謀殺罪的定罪, 認為要把同謀犯定謀殺罪,控方只需確定他可以預見實行 共同計劃時可能產生的後果。 雖然這已是香港和英格蘭及威爾斯三十多年來的普通法原 則,但英國最高法院最近在 Jogee([2016] UKSC 8)一案 取消了這項原則,認為在Chan Wing Siu案中走了錯誤的 一着,而引用的原則是基於對判例法的不完全和錯誤的 解讀,再加上廣義和可疑的策略論點。當被要求在Chan Kam Shing FACC 5/2016一案要遵循英國最高法院有 關Jogee的判決時,香港終審法院拒絕了,並認為Chan Wing Siu沒有採取任何"錯誤一着"。為了了解終審法院 在Chan Kam Shing一案的裁決,請看「刑事法」專欄(第 37頁)。 在3月號的其他地方,「家庭法」文章(第43頁)檢視了最 近的 YBL v LWC,CACV 244/2015判決,其中上訴法庭 全面審視了根據《 婚姻訴訟規則》(第179A 章)第87條的 「判決傳票程序」,並裁定該程序中的某些特性,與《香 港人權法案條例》(第383章)有所抵觸。本文最後強調了 這個重要的上訴法院裁決後來引發對「判決傳票程序」的 一些重要修改。此外還包括「中國實務」專欄(第49頁), 其中概述了中國對外投資可能涉及的歐盟和美國現有的監 管架構。本文作者提供了有關如何最大限度地減少交易相 關監管風險的有用提示,鑑於近年來中國對歐盟投資的需 求不斷增長,這些風險似乎尤為相關。 此外,對於領導中小型公司的讀者來說,「執業管理」文 章(第75頁)是一個有兩部分的系列的第一部分,是值得閱 讀的文章。本期這一部分重點介紹了中小型公司領導人需 要考慮的一系列戰略和操作,以及這些因素在香港競爭加 劇的情況下如何變化。第二部分將探討律師事務所領導人 需要做什麼,包括從現金流管理轉向創收作為這方面的自 然發展,以及組織思維的結構性轉變。

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

view archives of Hong Kong Lawyer - March 2017