PROFILE
As a criminal defence barrister, Joshua Ngai Jun is specialising in and often seen as the best choice counsel for a wide spectrum of offences – from frauds and indecent assaults to theft and money-laundering. His clients say this of him:
“He is always well prepared and he shows great skill in identifying the important and relevant issues.”
Joshua maintains high standard when handling trials as sole advocate. Joshua is fearless in putting your case; committed to lead you to the best outcomes in facing your criminal charges. He is praised for his unbending will to succeed as well as his charisma and his ability to handle clients with sensitivity.
Joshua may provide pro-bono services for those in desperate financial needs. His approachable manner puts clients at ease. He is contactable for giving talks or classes on criminal matters.
EDUCATION
PCLL, Distinguished Scholar, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (2019)
Juris Doctor, Bronze Scholarship, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (2016)
Dean List, BSSC, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Outstanding Student, Diocesan Boys School
SIGNIFICANT ACQUITTALS (DISTRICT COURT)
• HKSAR v Li Yan (DCCC 882/2022) – a young woman discovered that her boyfriend was having an affair, leading to an escalated dispute between them. The boyfriend made threats of harm in the midst of the emergency situation. In order to protect herself, the young woman instinctively grabbed a cutter and used a pair of scissors to stab her boyfriend multiple times, resulting in 11 wounds. Notably, there was a significant 10 cm cut on the boyfriend’s forehead. However, the court concluded that the young woman had acted in self-defence when she inflicted the injuries on her boyfriend.
• HKSAR v Chang Pui Sin (DCCC 1016/2022) – A young school girl innocently joined an online telegram group. Little did she know, the group took a dark turn when some members started discussing the purchase of weapons with the intention to harm someone. Unfortunately, due to her association with the group and that she was a group administrator, the girl found herself facing charges for being part of this conspiracy to cause harm. The court ultimately acquitted her, recognizing that she had no intention of participating in or supporting the actualization of the conspiracy.
• HKSAR v Lam Kan (DCCC 786/2017) – This case involved a businessman who, upon retrial, faced charges for signing a cheque worth $16 million Hong Kong Dollars despite not having the funds in any of his bank accounts to cover it at the time of signing. As a result, the cheque bounced, and he was accused of deception with the intent to evade liability. However, the court ultimately acquitted him. The reason for his acquittal stemmed from the fact that, although he did not possess the means to make the payment, he genuinely believed that he had been granted a loan of $30 million in the mainland. He held the honest belief that if this loan were to materialize, he would have the necessary funds to fulfil his obligations.
• HKSAR v Lee Chu Hung (DCCC 400/2021) – In this case, a deliveryman was tasked with transporting 50 boxes of medical supplies worth over HKD$2 million to the landfill. He was informed that the medical supplies were defective and were intended to be destroyed. However, instead of carrying out the disposal, the deliveryman chose to store the boxes in his warehouse and attempted to sell them online. As a result, he faced charges of theft. During the trial, the court examined the deliveryman’s actions and beliefs. It was determined that he genuinely believed the goods had been abandoned due to their defective nature. The court concluded that the deliveryman did not act dishonestly. Consequently, the deliveryman was acquitted of the theft charges.
• HKSAR v Chan Tsz Yeung (DCCC 9/2020) – In 2019, a man found himself in the vicinity of a riot that took place in the centre of the city. After being arrested, he openly expressed his support for the rioters to the police. Subsequently, he faced charges of rioting. The court determined that while the man may have held supportive views towards the riot, there was no evidence to suggest that he actively participated in the riot or was present at the location where the riot occurred. As a result, the court concluded that despite his mindset, he had not engaged in any actual participation or committed any actions that would constitute rioting. Therefore, the man was acquitted of the riot charges.
SIGNIFICANT ACQUITTALS (MAGISTRACY)
Joshua Ngai Jun has appeared in more than 30 criminal trials and secured many acquittals in the Magistracy Court, some cases where he found memorable are:
• HKSAR v Cheung Ping Yu – A restaurant owner made the decision to hire an illegal immigrant as a dishwasher in her establishment. Unfortunately, the restaurant was later raided, leading to charges against the owner and manager for Employing the Unemployable, as per section 17I of the Immigration Ordinance. During the legal proceedings, Joshua and his team made numerous efforts and attempts to recover evidence, eventually obtaining a photo of the fake HKID card that the illegal immigrant had used when she was initially hired. This evidence was crucial in the court’s assessment of the case. After carefully considering the owner’s testimony and examining the recovered evidence, the court concluded that the owner had made diligent and reasonable efforts to verify the worker’s legal right to work in Hong Kong.
• HKSAR v Tsoi Yut Sing – This is a case involving a conspiracy to arrange a bogus marriage. The defendant played a role in introducing a beautiful woman to a Hong Kong bankrupted man. The woman offered to pay the man HK$100,000 on the condition that they could proceed with the marriage earlier. Consequently, the introducer was charged with conspiring to commit fraud by orchestrating this fraudulent marriage arrangement. During the trial, new evidence emerged when the “husband” admitted to being in love with the woman and having engaged in sexual intercourse with her before “marriage”. The court found this revelation to be very significant, as it raised doubts about the fraudulent nature of the marriage. It was deemed unreasonable for a bogus marriage to involve sexual relations. As a result, the defendant was acquitted of the conspiracy to fraud charge.
• HKSAR v Leung Fong Wai – a group of students from the Chinese University had arranged to the attacking of a security guard by throwing eggs at him. None was caught at the scene. The defendant, who was a student leader, was arrested as he had been present at the crime scene 30 minutes prior to the incident, that he had been interacting with the attackers and he was recorded to have purchased eggs earlier that morning. During the trial, the court examined the evidence, particularly the eggs used in the attack. However, it was determined that there was a lack of conclusive evidence to establish that the eggs purchased by the student leader were the same eggs used in the attack. As a result, the court acquitted the student leader due to the absence of sufficient evidence linking him directly to the attack.
• HKSAR v Wui Hing Scaffolding Company – A scaffolding company faced an industrial summons for failing to maintain safety measures. The company had arranged for an outsourced worker but had asked the worker to halt operations until the safety officer of the company to arrive. However, the outsourced worker arrived early and disregarded the company’s instruction to wait for the safety officer. During the trial, the court found that the worker’s actions deviated from the instructions provided by the scaffolding company. As a result, the court concluded that the company should not be held liable for the worker’s actions, as the worker had willingly disobeyed their instructions.
JURY TRIAL EXPERIENCE (HIGH COURT)
Joshua has also been involved in several significant High Court criminal trials in the city:
• HKSAR v Ada Tsim Shum Kit: This trial involved a female bodyguard who was charged with murder for shooting her aunts and uncles inside Quarry Bay Park. The jury had to consider whether her personality disorder could be considered a partial defence, reducing her legal responsibility to manslaughter. The defence argued that the defendant’s actions were influenced by her emotional state and the trauma of her recently deceased mother, which caused her to feel upset by her aunts’ and uncles’ perceived disrespect towards her mother.
• HKSAR v Chan Hoi Ping: In this case, a father was charged with murder for imposing punishments that resulted in the death of his eight-year-old daughter, whom he claimed to love dearly. The main argument centred around the father’s intention to cause Grievous Bodily Harm while administering punishments, including starvation and corporal punishment, which he claimed were for educational purposes. Medical experts played a crucial role in the trial by providing testimony about the daughter’s health condition. They found that the girl had an underdeveloped Thyroid Glands, significantly compromising her immune system and making her more susceptible to bacterial infections. Experts determined that a bacterial infection ultimately caused her death. This case generated widespread public discussion on the topic of corporal punishment and its impact on children, raising broader societal implications.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT REPRESENTATIONS
Lastly, Joshua had represented the following well-known Hong Kong Residents:
• HKSAR v Jimmy Lai Chee Ying 黎智英 – Hong Kong Media Tycoon, the founder of Apple Daily, has been charged with inciting an unauthorized assembly for commemorating the June Fourth Incident;
• HKSAR v Teddy Hui Chi Fung 許智峯 – Former Hong Kong Legislator charged with Perverting Course of Justice while negotiating between protestors;
• HKSAR v Gwyneth Ho Kwai Lam何桂藍 – 47 Pro-Democracy Figures, charge with Conspiracy to Subversion related to the 2020 Primary Election;
• HKSAR v Tong Ka Kei 唐嘉麒 – Immigration Officer, charged with voyeurism for allegedly taking photos of his neighbour’s naked back from his residence in a building across the street;
• HKSAR v Chris Todorovski Shing Hang 杜林承亨 – Student of Hong Kong University Student Union charged with Inciting Terrorism for passing a motion to “express deep sadness” at the death of police attacker;
• HKSAR v Tao Kai Wing 杜啓榮 – The captain of a vessel, who is well-known among fishermen in Aberdeen, has been charged with Carrying Unauthorised Entrants for the discovery of seven mainland fishermen found aboard the captain’s boat;
• HKSAR v Wong Wai Keung 黃偉強 – Administrative Director of Listed Company, charged with Fraud for failing to disclose a side business occupying the Listed Company’s premise.
