{"id":12453,"date":"2023-06-23T15:05:19","date_gmt":"2023-06-23T07:05:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/"},"modified":"2025-07-09T21:07:14","modified_gmt":"2025-07-09T13:07:14","slug":"leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662","status":"publish","type":"legal_update","link":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/","title":{"rendered":"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\">Date of Reasons for Judgment: 23 June 2023<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The applicant was charged with manslaughter, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 7 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In 2014, Ms Lee Kar-ying Josephine (\u201cV\u201d) died following a liposuction procedure performed by the applicant, a registered medical practitioner.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The prosecution\u2019s case was that the applicant breached her duty of care to V and that her breach of duty caused V\u2019s death and constituted gross negligence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The prosecution particularised five alleged breaches of duty of care by the applicant. Briefly, the alleged breaches were (a) failure to have present a properly qualified person to administer and monitor sedation; (b) failure to ensure sufficient supply of oxygen during sedation; (c) failure to act in accordance with various guidelines of the Guidelines on Procedural Sedation; (d) failure to provide proper and sufficient monitoring after the procedure of liposuction; and (e) failure to provide adequate, timely resuscitation to V.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In 2021, the applicant was convicted after trial of gross negligence manslaughter and was sentenced by the trial judge to 6 years\u2019 imprisonment. A briefing on the trial judge\u2019s Reasons for Sentence is available <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/legal_update\/doctor-jailed-for-gross-negligence-manslaughter-over-death-of-a-liposuction-patient-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2021-hkcfi-2978\/\">here<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<br \/>\n<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\">The applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Her application was heard by Zervos JA, a judge of the Court of Appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Leave to appeal against conviction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Zervos JA noted that the nature of the deceased\u2019s death was unable to be ascertained and held that it was arguable that Dr Chan Yu Wai and Dr Phoebe-Anne Mainland, prosecution experts, within the confines of their expert knowledge, proposed a cause of death of which they were uncertain.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The applicant advanced the following ten grounds of appeal against conviction:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 1: The judge erred in allowing the production of the combined CCTV footages in circumstances that constituted material irregularity at trial.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 2: The judge failed to adequately and sufficiently direct the jury on (i) the limitations of the CCTV footages; and (ii) the proper approach to the evidence where a large part of the prosecution&#8217;s case on the applicant\u2019s alleged actions\/inactions was derived from interpretations made and inferences drawn by the key expert witness Dr Mainland from the incomplete CCTV footages.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 3: There was a material irregularity occasioned by the drastic and last\u00ad minute departure in Dr Mainland\u2019s evidence from the assumptions she made in her expert report (Exhibit P100) which, coupled with the lack of timely and full disclosure to the defence of material information pertaining to such departure despite the defence&#8217;s request, resulted in unfairness and prejudice to the defence at trial.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 4: There was a material irregularity in the conduct of the trial when the judge refused to allow defence counsel to cross-examine on (i) the contents of Dr Lester Ah Critchley\u2019s expert report notwithstanding that the report had been considered by the prosecution expert witnesses themselves when forming their opinions; and (ii) the original unmuted CCTV footages adduced at trial as Exhibit P55. The applicant was thus deprived of the opportunity to present her defence case fully, especially on the crucial issue as to the deceased&#8217;s level of sedation, thereby undermining her right to fair trial.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 5: The judge failed to adequately sum up and direct the jury in a fair and balanced manner.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u2018Ground 6: The judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the issue of \u201ccausation\u201d in the circumstances of this case where the prosecution case was expressly based on Dr Mainland\u2019s opinion that it was \u201cthe additive effect, or combination of several failures that together contributed to the situation where death occurred\u201d.\u2019<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 7: The judge\u2019s direction on the issue of \u201cforeseeability\u201d, given after her direction on \u201ccausation\u201d, was liable to confuse the jury, which prejudice was compounded by the erroneous direction to the jury that they were entitled to consider multiple breaches of duty of care together in approaching the issue of foreseeability\u201d.<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 8: The judge erred in instructing the jury to find the prosecution case proved if they find they could rely on Dr Mainland\u2019s opinion, giving rise to the risk of the expert\u2019s opinion supplanting the jury\u2019s evaluation of the evidence\u201d.<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 9: The judge failed to give a Kevin Brown direction and failed to sufficiently instruct the jury as to how they should approach their tasks on route to verdict where there were multiple particulars of breach of duty of care alleged, each capable of amounting to gross negligence. In the context of the present case, such a direction (requested, but not entertained) would be required, contrary to HKSAR v Mak Wan Ling [2022] HKCA 397.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 10: In all the circumstances, the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Zervos JA did not find Grounds 1, 2 or 3 reasonably arguable &#8220;in so far as they complained about the combining of Camera 4 and Camera 8 and the admission into evidence of the Combined CCTV and its late disclosure\u201d. Zervos JA added that various reasonably arguable points were made in these grounds relating to Dr Mainland\u2019s evidence but these points appropriately come within the terms of the general complaint about the evidence of Dr Mainland as described in Ground 8.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Zervos JA held that Ground 4 and Grounds 6-10 were reasonably arguable and granted the applicant leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 4 and Grounds 6-10.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">As for Ground 5, Zervos JA did not find Ground 5 reasonably arguable \u201cto the extent that the judge\u2019s summing-up was unfair and unbalanced\u201d. Nonetheless, Zervos JA held that there were \u201cobvious and inherent issues with the expert evidence \u2026 which arguably should have been emphasised in the judge\u2019s summing-up\u201d. Zervos JA found it reasonably arguable that \u201ccritical aspects of the expert evidence were not appropriately or sufficiently emphasised with the jury\u201d. To that extent, he granted the applicant leave to appeal on this ground.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Leave to appeal against sentence<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The applicant advanced the following two grounds of appeal against sentence:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 11: The judge erred in considering the particulars of breach of duty of care which formed an inherent part of the offence itself as aggravating factors in sentencing.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<li><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cGround 12: The sentence of 6 years\u2019 imprisonment was manifestly excessive and failed to take sufficient account of the mitigating circumstances of the applicant.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Zervos JA found the grounds of appeal against sentence reasonably arguable, and granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Outcome<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Zervos JA granted the applicant leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on the grounds specified above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Please refer to the <strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/legalref.judiciary.hk\/lrs\/common\/ju\/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=153406\">Reasons for Judgment<\/a><\/span><\/strong> handed down by Zervos JA for more details.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Dislcaimer:<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\">All the statements and information\/ suggestions on this website are made\/ provided without legal responsibility and do not constitute legal or other professional advice. No legal liability shall arise from any errors or omissions in relation to any of the statements\/ information\/ suggestions on this website. No express or implied warranties of accuracy or fitness for any particular purpose or use with respect to the statements\/ information\/ suggestions on this website are made. This website is for general reference only. The law changes from time to time.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":7283,"template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","inline_featured_image":false},"legal_type":[670],"legal_year":[687],"legal_tag":[680,678],"class_list":["post-12453","legal_update","type-legal_update","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","legal_type-case-briefing-zh","legal_year-2023-zh","legal_tag-grossnegligencemanslaughter-zh","legal_tag-negligence-zh"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v20.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662 - Centre for Medical Ethics and Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_TW\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662 - Centre for Medical Ethics and Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court Date of Reasons for Judg [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-09T13:07:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/wp-content\/uploads\/GeneralPicture_11-4.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1700\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9810\u4f30\u95b1\u8b80\u6642\u9593\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 \u5206\u9418\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/\",\"name\":\"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662 - Centre for Medical Ethics and Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-23T07:05:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-09T13:07:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-TW\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/\",\"name\":\"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law\",\"description\":\"University\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-TW\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-TW\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/wp-content\/uploads\/cmel-logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/wp-content\/uploads\/cmel-logo.png\",\"width\":531,\"height\":160,\"caption\":\"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662 - Centre for Medical Ethics and Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/","og_locale":"zh_TW","og_type":"article","og_title":"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662 - Centre for Medical Ethics and Law","og_description":"Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court Date of Reasons for Judg [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/","og_site_name":"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law","article_modified_time":"2025-07-09T13:07:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1700,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/wp-content\/uploads\/GeneralPicture_11-4.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9810\u4f30\u95b1\u8b80\u6642\u9593":"6 \u5206\u9418"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/","url":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/","name":"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662 - Centre for Medical Ethics and Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-06-23T07:05:19+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-09T13:07:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-TW","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/legal_update\/leave-to-appeal-granted-in-liposuction-manslaughter-case-hksar-v-kwan-hau-chi-vanessa-2023-hkca-662\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Leave to appeal granted in liposuction gross negligence manslaughter case: HKSAR v KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA [2023] HKCA 662"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/","name":"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law","description":"University","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"zh-TW"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#organization","name":"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law","url":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-TW","@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/wp-content\/uploads\/cmel-logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/wp-content\/uploads\/cmel-logo.png","width":531,"height":160,"caption":"Centre for Medical Ethics and Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_update\/12453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_update"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/legal_update"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_update\/12453\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14066,"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_update\/12453\/revisions\/14066"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"legal_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_type?post=12453"},{"taxonomy":"legal_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_year?post=12453"},{"taxonomy":"legal_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cmel.hku.hk\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_tag?post=12453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}