Chapter 4 Findings
4.3 Summary of Findings & Discussion
Given the strong evidence from past literature which supports the validity of the
Explicitation Hypothesis, it is not surprising to note that the results in this study do show strong evidence to support this hypothesis. If we were to group the results of the study based on the respective categories they belonged to, the table of summarised findings would look like this:
64
Table 24 - Table of summarised findings by category Translational
Parallel Conjunctions 616 342 73.85 (+)
Cause-effect Conjunctions 201 135 11.71 (+)
Temporal Conjunctions 359 223 29.30 (+)
Contrastive Conjunctions 392 264 22.53 (+)
Connectives at Intra-sentential Level (including “verb+that”)
2200 1559 96.86 (+)
Words and Phrases for Cause-effect
104 44 23.80 (+)
Words and Phrases for Contrast 189 204 0.93 (-)
Words and Phrases for Supplementary
*Figures highlighted in bold imply statistically higher frequency of occurrence in the translational corpus
65
(+) More occurrences in translation corpus (-) More occurrences in non-translational corpus
For connectives at the intra-sentential level, the total tally of occurrences came in at 2,200 in the translational corpus and 1,559 in the non-translational corpus, giving a very high log-likelihood value of 96.86. As for connectives at the inter-sentential level, they occurred 437 times in the translational corpus and 328 times in the non-translational corpus, equivalent to a log-likelihood value of 13.39. While this value is lower compared to that for connectives at the intra-sentential level, it is still significant. Adding them all together, we get a total of 2,637 occurrences in the translational corpus and 1,887 occurrences in the non-translational corpus, which also means a very high value of 109.73.
Given these result, it would be reasonable to conclude that explicitating connectives do indeed occur with a greater absolute and statistical frequency as a whole in translated legal judgments, both at the intra-sentential and inter-sentential levels. However, it must also be noted that in several sub-categories, the findings point to statistically weak evidence or even
contrasting trends.
66 Chapter 5 Discussion & Conclusion
5.1 Summary and discussion
The findings of the study indicate that Chinese-English translations of legal judgments do, as a whole, tend to contain more occurrences of explicitation compared to judgments written in English. Yet this trend is not uniform across the various categories of explicitating connectives.
For example, conditional conjunctions are most certainly not quite as popular among the translators as parallel conjunctions are.
But overall, this is in line with Pym’s Risk Management framework, since it seem as if translators tend to stick to certain forms of explicitation, as well as specific words and phrases (such as the strong tendency to use “therefore”) for their explicitation strategy. In a field where the accuracy of the translated content reigns supreme, this is not all that surprising.
Despite the strong evidence, I believe that a degree of caution should be taken when using these figures to support the validity of the Explicitation Hypothesis. This is because the Explicitation Hypothesis has erected a very high bar to jump over in claiming that explicitation is a universal, inherent phenomenon in translation. Can we still call explicitation a universal,
inherent phenomenon if it does not apply to every connective, as is the case in this study? If it is
“inherent” with respect to the use of parallel conjunctions, why is it not “inherent” in the use of conditional conjunctions? Perhaps a more fleshed out Explicitation Hypothesis can provide a stronger basis for future research in this area.
67
5.2 Limitations of the Study
If time and resource constraints were loosened, the size of the corpus used in this study could probably be expanded in a bigger study since the judgments we looked at do not represent the full range of judgments available for study. With the resources available on the Hong Kong Judiciary website, it is entirely possible to construct a corpus in excess of a million tokens.
An interesting angle that we could not explore is the thinking process behind the
application of explicitation by the translators. We do not know if the translators are explicitating unconsciously, consciously, or applying explicitation in accordance with a style guide. If
explicitation had happened primarily at the unconscious level, the evidence for explicitation as a translation universal would be much stronger.
The question of whether the English in the corpus was written or translated by native English speakers is a valid one as well. Based on Kachru's (1992) three circles of English, Hong Kong would probably fall within the second circle, namely the Outer Circle, which consists primarily of lands where the local population did not originally speak English, but adopted it as a lingua franca. Based on my own observations, I found no reason to question the standard of English in the corpus. But my opinion are ultimately subjective and this question could potentially limit the applicability and relevance of the findings in relation to other English speaking regions, particularly those that fall within Kachru's Inner Circle. Ideally, more
information regarding the credentials of the writers and translators of the materials used in this corpus would have helped.
Another important point to note is that the corpus used in this study should not be seen as representative of all forms of legal writing and legal translations, after all, the style of writing found in legal judgments would be different from that for legal contracts, so it is entirely possible
68
that a CTS-approach using legal contracts may produce very different results. Moreover the judgments used in this study were written or translated within the last five to six years, which means that the findings possibly be different if we had drawn materials from across a longer time span.
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research
Instead of focusing solely on the explicitation hypothesis, future research could look at the asymmetry hypothesis, which would require a greater amount of time and effort, as well as more English-to-Chinese materials to execute. According to Klaudy and Károly (Klaudy and Károly 2005), the asymmetry hypothesis postulates that explicitation in one translational
direction (e.g. English-to-Chinese) is not always counterbalanced by implicitation in the opposite translational direction (e.g. Chinese-to-English) because translators prefer to use operations involving explicitation and often fail to carry out optional implicitation. A study based on the asymmetry hypothesis would help expand our understanding of explicitation patterns. Such a study would, however, require the construction of a parallel corpus that is bilingual and bi-directional, and this would be more challenging since bidirectional legal databases are a rarity at the present moment.
69 References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words— a coursebook on translation. London & New York:
Routledge.
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M.
Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 223-250). Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research, Target, 7(2), 223-43.
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In
Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator.
Target, 12(2), 241-266.
Becher, V. (2011). Explicitation and implicitation in translation: A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hamburg, Germany.
Blum-Kulka, S. ([1986] 2000). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 298-313). London and New York: Routledge.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Leveston, E. (1983). Universals of lexical simplification. In Faerch, C. &
Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 119-139). London &
New York: Longman.
70
Cai, P. S. (2007). An investigation into the “explicitation” feature in the Chinese-English
journalistic translation: A corpus-based translation study. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Chen, W. (2004). The Hypotaxis Tendency of Chinese-translated texts: A Corpus-based Translation Study. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 9, 161-196.
Chen, W. (2007). A corpus-based approach to the modelling of the explicitation process in English-Chinese translation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 10, 31-85.
Chesterman, A. (2004) Beyond the particular. In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation Universals. Do they exist? (pp 33-49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, Cap 1, art 5 (1997)
Duan, L. L. (2010). An Analysis of Universals in the Translation of Chinese Government Work Reports: A Corpus-based Study. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Henan Normal
University, Henan, PRC.
Kachru, B. (1992). The Other Tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.
Klaudy, K. (1998). Explicitation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 104-108). London & New York: Routledge.
Klaudy, Kinga & Krisztina Károly. 2005. Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1). 13–28.
Laviosa, S. (1998a). The corpus-based approach: A new paradigm in translation studies. Meta, 43(4), 474-479.
71
Laviosa, S. (1998b). Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose. Meta, 43 (4), 557-570.
Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications.
Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1996) The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A resource and methodology for the empirical study of translation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Manchester, U.K.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S.(1997). Investigating Simplification in an English Comparable Corpus of Newspaper Articles. In K. Klaudy and J. Kohn (Eds.), Transferre Necesse Est.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5-7 September, 1996, Budapest, Hungary, (pp.531-540).
Budapest: Scholastica.
Li, W.Y. (2014) A Corpus-based Translation Study on Explicitation of Translated Chinese Scientific Texts: A Case Study on Scientific American (Unpublished master’s thesis).
National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Official Languages Ordinance, § 3 (1974)
Olohan, M. & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting “that” in translated English: Evidence for subliminal processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 141-158. 86
Olohan, M. (2003). Spelling out the optionals in translation: a corpus study. In P. Rayson, A.
Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie and S. Khoja (Eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference , (pp. 167 – 175). Lancaster.
72
Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London & New York:
Routledge.
Øverås, L. (1998). In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation, Meta, 43(4), 571-588.
Pym, A. (2001). On cooperation. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines (pp.181-193).
Manchester, United Kingdom: St. Jerome Publishing.
Pym, A. (2005). Explaining Explicitation. In K. Karoly (Ed.), New Trends in Translation Studies.
In Honor of Kinga Klaudy.
Vinay, J.-P. and J. Darbelnet (1958/1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation, translated and edited by Juan C. Sager and Marie-Josée Hamel, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Xu, Jiajin. (2009). Log-likelihood ratio calculator. Beijing: National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
73 Appendix
Appendix I - List of judgments used in the corpus
Case Number Name of Case Type of text (Translated/Non-translated) /
Number of words 1 CACV 2/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 422 OF 2011)
LAU TIN CHEUNG v. TIANJIN DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD
Non-translated / 174
2 CACV 5/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO.
24 of 2014)
LAU CHUN MING v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU(a firm)
Non-translated / 2916
4 CACV 24/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2015 Non-translated / 1485
74
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO.
16 OF 2008)
CHEN CHERYL DEANNA v.
CHEN PAK YIN STELLA JUDGMENT
5 CACV 24/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO.
16 OF 2008)
CHEN CHERYL DEANNA v.
CHEN PAK YIN STELLA DECISION ON COSTS
Non-translated / 624
6 CACV 27/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO 27 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ 3333
OF 2011)
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI
WAI YIP
Non-translated / 5529
7 CACV 31/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO.
113 of 2013)
黃志堅 v. 調查委員會(2012年10月
Non-translated / 1661
75
1日南丫島附近撞船事故）
8 CACV 32/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO 32 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO
1794 OF 2014)
ANGELA HO & ASSOCIATES (A FIRM) v. KWONG KA YIN t/a
PHYLLIS KY KWONG &
ASSOCIATES
Non-translated / 1807
9 CACV 48/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO 48 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO
2476 OF 2014)
TANG CHI CHUNG) (MINOR) BY TANG CHAI ON v. TANG SUN
YIP AND ANOTHER
Non-translated / 2180
10 CACV 63/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO.
91 OF 2013) AW v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Non-translated / 8288
11 CACV 75/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO.
392 OF 2015)
Non-translated / 13100
76 M v. E
12 CACV 84/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO 84 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCB
8025/2013) (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO.
2981 of 2004) (ON APPEAL FROM HCPI NO.
494 OF 2013) (ON APPEAL FROM HCPI NO.
494 OF 2013)
Non-translated / 3203
77
CAI GUOPING v. YIM HOK WING AND OTHERS DECISION ON COSTS 16 CACV 98/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM FCMC NO.
4880 of 2014) LCYP v. JEK
Non-translated / 14325
17 CACV 118/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO 118 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL
138/2014)
HUNG HING AND 66 OTHERS v.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Non-translated / 4861
18 CACV 132/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO.
288 OF 2014)
RE NEO TELEMEDIA LTD
Non-translated / 2063
19 CACV 147/2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM LDBM NO.
256 of 2013)
莫炎熙 v. 香港房屋委員會
Non-translated / 3615
20 CACV 151/2014 and
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 151 OF 2014 AND 72 OF 2015
Non-translated / 6698
78 CACV 72/2015
(Heard together)
(ON APPEAL FROM PROBATE ACTION NO. 8 OF 2011) KWOK SHUK KUEN MARIA AND ANOTHER v. LI WUN AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO.
143 OF 2014) AND
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCEEDINGS NO. 486 OF 2015 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 143 OF 2014)
PARK LOMEN INN LTD v.
APPEAL BOARD (HOTEL AND GUESTHOUSE
ACCOMMODATION)
Non-translated / 3623
23 CACV 222/2014 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 222 OF 2014 Non-translated / 7594
79 ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI
DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL
GROUP LTD) 24 CACV 222/2015
and HCMP 1464/2015
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2015 AND
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCEEDINGS NO. 1464 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO.
2422 OF 2013)
WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD
v. EMILY TSE AND OTHERS
Non-translated / 2160
25 CACV 251/2013 CACV 253/2013 CACV 66/2015
CIVIL APPEAL NO 251 OF 2013, NO 253 OF 2013 AND NO 66 OF
2015
(On appeal from HCCT 45/2010) ASTRO NUSANTARA
Non-translated / 7401
80
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
413 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. GURUNG MOHIT
Non-translated / 810
27 CACC 16/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
322 OF 2013)
HKSAR v. MUTURU, ESTHER WAITHIRA
Non-translated / 1044
28 CACC 19/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
286 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. WONG SZE TUNG
Non-translated / 1538
29 CACC 34/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
Non-translated / 2345
81 125 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. LEUNG KAM SING 30 CACC 37/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF
2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
36 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. GUZMAN BETANCUR JUAN CARLOS
Non-translated / 1675
31 CACC 44/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
247 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. SALVADOR DIAS
Non-translated / 2192
32 CACC 45/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 45 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 954 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN
Non-translated / 3925
33 CACC 49/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
184 OF 2014)
Non-translated / 2155
82
HKSAR v. TSANG WAI KEUNG 34 CACC56/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF
2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 739 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. SZE HOI YAN DECISION
Non-translated / 1447
35 CACC56/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 739 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. SZE HOI YAN JUDGMENT
Non-translated / 1704
36 CACC56/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 739 OF 2014)
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
Non-translated / 1312
83
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
1057 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUNG
Non-translated / 1268
39 CACC 82/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
974 OF 2014)
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
1035 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. MASOOM PARVEZ
Non-translated / 876
41 CACC 90/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
Non-translated / 1485
84
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
58 OF 2015)
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
927 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. MD EMON SHA
Non-translated / 1188
44 CACC 98/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
146 OF 2014) HKSAR v. ZAHEER
MUHAMMAD
Non-translated / 1479
45 CACC 104/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2015
Non-translated / 1579
85
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
570 OF 2013) HKSAR v. LAI TSZ KI 46 CACC 130/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 130 OF
2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 740 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. WONG MUN MING
Non-translated / 1184
47 CACC 131/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
200 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. FUNG HO WAI, SUKI
Non-translated / 809
48 CACC 137/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
57 OF 2015)
HKSAR v. WONG HON CHIU
Non-translated / 1675
49 CACC 142/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
496 OF 2013)
Non-translated / 1068
86
HKSAR v. CHAN SIK LING 50 CACC 147/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF
2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
194 OF 2015)
HKSAR v. SONDI NUDIN ALSO KNOWN AS ARI SANJAYA
Non-translated / 1801
51 CACC 152/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
628 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. CHUNG WAI YUM
Non-translated / 1117
52 CACC 157/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
75 OF 2015)
HKSAR v. MAJID MUHAMMAD
Non-translated / 1561
53 CACC 158/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
506 OF 2014) HKSAR v. LAI SUK YIN
Non-translated / 1270
87
54 CACC 159/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 159 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 548 OF 2013)
HKSAR v. TAM LING YUEN
Non-translated / 838
55 CACC 164/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
226 OF 2015)
HKSAR v. PALEVICI, IOSIF ADRIAN AND ANOTHER
Non-translated / 1926
56 CACC 165/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
925 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. SHAM PUI CHAK
Non-translated / 2708
57 CACC 183/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
207 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. LAW YING KAM
Non-translated / 1414
58 CACC 216/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 216 OF Non-translated / 2869
88 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 817 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. LIU KIT MAN 59 CACC 232/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 232 OF
2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 278 OF 2014 AND 150 OF 2015) HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD SAQIB
Non-translated / 1375
60 CACC 305/2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 305 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 272 OF 2015)
HKSAR v. WONG KIN FAI
Non-translated / 2437
61 CAAR 1/2013 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO.
1 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
198 OF 2012)
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v.
NGAI FUNG SIN APPLE
Translated / 4464
62 CAAR 2/2012 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO.
2 OF 2012
Translated / 4200
89
(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC NO.
6293 OF 2011)
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v.
CHONG YAO LONG KEVIN 63 CAAR 2/2013 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO
2 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 65 OF 2013)
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v.
SZE SUM
Translated / 2236
64 CAAR 2/2014 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO.
2 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 925 OF 2013)
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v.
LAM YU WAI
Translated / 3107
65 CACC 2/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
1035 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. WONG LUK SAU
Translated / 2987
66 CACC 17/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF Translated / 2315
90 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
1004 OF 2013)
HKSAR v. WONG CHI WING 67 CACC 21/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 21 OF
2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 953 OF 2013)
HKSAR v. CEN HUAKUO
Translated / 2285
68 CACC 36/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 36 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 755 OF 2012)
HKSAR v. AU YEUNG CHING CHEONG STEPHEN AND
ANOTHER
Translated / 5174
69 CACC 65/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 65 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 208 OF 2013)
HKSAR v. YANG SIGAI
Translated / 15332
70 CACC 67/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 67 OF Translated / 3071
91 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 121 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. WONG TAK WAI 71 CACC 112/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF
2013
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 896/2012)
HKSAR v. MA TIK LUN DICKY
Translated / 4467
72 CACC 125/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 125 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 1111 OF 2013)
HKSAR v. L
Translated / 1137
73 CACC 127/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.
417 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. PANG HIU SAN
Translated / 3800
74 CACC 141/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 141 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 47
Translated / 7575
92 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. LIN ZONG YUE 75 CACC 143/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 143 OF
2012
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
446 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. AU YEUNG LAI HUNG DORIS
Translated / 4975
76 CACC 147/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
1343 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. XIAO PING（肖萍）
DUAN JUNWEI（段軍偉）
LO SIU CHU（羅少珠）
Translated / 2431
77 CACC 157/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 421 OF 2012)
HKSAR v. SO TSZ KON
Translated / 4911
78 CACC 178/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 178 OF Translated / 5890
93 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 301/2012)
HKSAR v. LAM, TIMOTHY YAT FUNG
79 CACC 188/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 313 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. YANG YULAN
Translated / 3874
80 CACC 199/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 199 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 329 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. YUEN TSZ-HEI
Translated / 1440
81 CACC 203/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 409 OF 2011)
HKSAR v. LEE CHI SHING
Translated / 4535
82 CACC 240/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 240 OF 2013
Translated / 1602
94
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 120/2013)
HKSAR v. LAU MAN HIN 83 CACC 245/2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 245 OF
2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 175 OF 2014)
HKSAR v. LAN XIANXIN AND ANOTHER
Translated / 2613
84 CACC 250/2013 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO 250 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 327 OF 2012)
HKSAR v. LAM KAI MAN
Translated / 4283
85 CACC 266/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 266 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 14 OF 2013)
Translated / 2396
95
HKSAR v. FENG HAIYAN 86 CACC 267/2012 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 267 OF
2012
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO.