邓兆麟 大律师

Practice Areas

Alan is a criminal-defence specialist.

Throughout the years, Alan has predominately and frequently been instructed as an advocate in a wide range of criminal trials and magistracy appeals. His practice spans a broad spectrum of offences, ranging from conspiracy to defraud, bribery-related offences, theft and fraud, construction health and safety cases (commonly referred to as industrial summonses), sexual-related offences (indecent assault, public indecency and voyeurism), to road traffic offences (dangerous driving, careless driving and dangerous driving causing death). A number of cases that Alan has been instructed on have been devastating and difficult, requiring careful legal analysis and thorough examination of the circumstances around each case. Alan often utilises his meticulous cross examination skills and familiarity of case facts to vouch for his clients cases, achieving many successful acquittals.

Alan is also a seasoned mitigation advocate who has been entrusted by many solicitors to handle thousands of mitigation hearings around Hong Kong. He strongly believes that his preparation, perseverance, and devotion are the backbone of successful mitigation advocacy, and has often used them to achieve the best outcome for his clients.

Alan is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Selected Cases

Commercial Crime

HKSAR v. Lam: acted for the Client facing two counts of money laundering. An argument was advanced that under caution, the officer had failed to give a reasonable opportunity for the Client to explain the money laundering allegations he was facing. During the trial, Alan successfully persuaded the Court that the Client as a businessman has reasonable belief that the monies he received from his client were proceeds of lawful trading. The Client was acquitted on both charges.

HKSAR v. Li:acted for the Client facing two counts of money laundering in the sum of approximately HK$1,000,000. An argument was advanced about whether s. 25A(2)(b)(i) to (iii) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455 are applicable if the accused had disclosed the proceeds in his witness statement (Pol. 154). The Client was acquitted on all two charges.

Alan has often been instructed to give legal advice on matters related to money laundering, allegations under Prevention and Bribery Ordinance and/or offences related to fraud and/or conspiracy to defraud.

Industrial Summonses, Construction Safety

HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited & Anothers (10 summonses altogether): acted as the sole advocate for the joint venture and subcontractor for a three-day trial. Following Alan's cross examination of the primary witness, the prosecution finally noticed that the evidence provided by their primary witness was giving unfavourable evidence against the prosecution case. That said, the Prosecution then applied and requested the primary witness be regarded as hostile witness. Ultimately, the prosecution's application was rejected on the basis that the Learned Magistrate agreed with the Defence's position that the evidence that had given by the primary witness was merely unfavourable, rather than hostile in nature. The Prosecution's case was thus completely collapsed and thus, all 10 summonses were then acquitted.

HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited (D1) and Others (D2):acted as the sole advocate for the main contractor D1. Arguments were advanced and the Court accepted that reasonably adequate steps had been taken by D1 at the material time in order to safeguard the workers’ safety at the construction site in question. D1 was acquitted.

HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited (D1) and Others (D2):acted as the sole advocate for the main contractor D1. An argument was advanced as to the appropriate time frame for displaying Form 4 at the construction site. Both D1 and D2 were acquitted of the summonses.

HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited(with Mr. Lawrence Hui): acted as a junior on one count of summon in relation to noise controlling permit. The Client was acquitted of the summon.

Road Traffic Offences

HKSAR v. Wong: acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of careless driving. Alan successfully persuaded the Court that at the material time, the Client did not infringe any of the rules stipulated in the Road User Guide and that the prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the matters, rendering the prosecution witnesses (that is, the drivers and the passenger) were neither credible nor reliable witnesses. The Client was acquitted.

HKSAR v. Poon: The Client was a senior manager of a bank. Alan acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of careless driving. Alan prosperously persuaded the Court that at the material time, the Client did not violate any of the rules under the Road User Guide whereas the victim in question had infringed the Pedestrian Code (which forms part of the Road User Guide). The Client was acquitted.

HKSAR v. Fung: The Client was a senior police inspector. Alan acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of careless driving. During the trial, Alan managed to elicit from the prosecution witness that he was crossing the double lining across the client who was staying within his lane. The Client was acquitted.

HKSAR v. Tang: acted as a sole advocate for the Client facing one count of dangerous driving.

Sexual Offences

Alan is extremely experienced in handling cases related to voyeurism and/or offences of outraging public decency.

HKSAR v. Chan: acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of outraging public decency. This was a case where the Prosecution relied solely on the observant’s evidence. During the trial, Alan managed to persuade the Court to accept that the observant was not a credible and reliable witness. In particular, during the examination in chief, the observant was given the opportunity to review the CCTV footage. The observant, at first, told the Court that the alleged incident had already taken place during the CCTV footage. Nevertheless, during the hearing, when the observant was referred to the snapshots of the CCTV footage (which was produced as Defence's exhibits), the observant then derailed from her original evidence and invented that the alleged incident took place after the CCTV footage. On this note, Alan further enlightened this point and argued that the observant’s evidence at the hearing  was inherently improbable. The Court accepted the arguments enunciated by the Defence. Client was acquitted for the charge.

HKSAR v. So: acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of indecent assault. Alan managed to persuade the Court that the “touch” was merely accidental and that the prosecution witness exaggerated the matters whilst giving evidence during the trial. The Client was acquitted.

Other Criminal Cases

HKSAR v. Chan Man Yiu [2018] HKCA 804 (with Mr. Dick Lee), acted as a junior on a criminal appeal on a charge of burglary.

HKSAR v. Chan Ting [2019] HKCFI 256 (with Mr. Lawrence Hui), acted as a junior on a criminal appeal on a charge of indecent assault.

HKSAR v. Wong Ming Wai [2021] HKCFI 170 (with Mr. James Tze), acted as a junior on a criminal appeal regarding a police officer assaulting a civilian.

HKSAR v. Chung Wai Yee (HCMA 280/2020), acted as the advocate on a criminal appeal regarding theft.

HKSAR v. Li Pui Ka & Anor [2020] HKDC 239 (DCCC 725/2019), acted as a sole advocate to mitigate for the Client who was charged with three counts of using a false instrument.

HKSAR v. Yip Man Leung (DCCC 814/2019) (with Mr. Jon Wong), acted as a junior to mitigate for the Client who was charged with one count of riot.

HKSAR v. Faraz Waqaas (DCCC 465/2020) (with Mr. Clement Lau), acted as a junior for a Client charged with various counts including dangerous driving.

HKSAR v. Kam, acted as the advocate for the 2nd Defendant who was facing a charge of fighting in public area. Alan convinced the court that the 2nd Defendant was acting in self-defence against a complex factual matrix. He was acquitted.

HKSAR v. Lyu, acted for the Client facing three charges including one count of conspiracy to defraud and two counts of false statements. Alan managed to persuade the Court that the respective officer was inducing the Client when compiling the cautioned statement. At the end, all three charges were acquitted.