A few weeks ago, I attended my first jury trial as a “mini-mini” pupil, or “mini” pupil, at the High Court (HCCC250/2024). The case involved a man named Lau Man Chung, who received a parcel and was intercepted by a customs officer dressed as a FedEx delivery driver. The officer then arrested him and searched his flat. Inside his flat, the officer found 800 to 900 g of ketamine and some tiny tablets of (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) MDMA, hidden in some children’s roller skates. Later, it was revealed that the roller skates were sent by Lau Chi Kit, the defendant’s supposed friend, so they could be given as a gift to Lau Chi Kit’s girlfriend’s daughter. The trial lasted seven days, and I observed my mother’s former pupil master, Mr. Andrew Raffell, throughout the case.
The first day began with jury selection, and seven jurors were selected. Later, defence counsel and Mr. Raffell (the prosecutor) argued about questions relating to Section 65 in the VRI-transcript. In the transcript, D, the defendant, replies “IDK” to a few questions, including “Do you know what’s in the parcel?” Mr. Raffell thinks D is essentially using “IDK” to lie. The DC still thinks that D does not know, or that D means something else. After lunch, Mr. Raffell gave his opening submission, and the main points were about the “IDK” answers mentioned earlier. Mr. Raffell then went through the admitted facts of the case, and after that, we finished.
The second day started with the examination-in-chief of the first prosecution witness, i.e., the first Customs Officer. The main topic was what the officer was doing with D at the back of the customs office at the time. The DC then cross-examined the witness; the main topic was cooperation. Most of the questions focused on cooperation, and the DC managed to get the witness to answer “yes” to some of them. Mr. Raffell later checked the bundle and saw that D was not actually cooperative. After lunch, we heard from another prosecution witness, the second Customs Officer, beginning with examination-in-chief by Mr. Raffell. The questioning was very brief. After that, the DC cross-examined him. The main topic was unusual questions and phone calls made by D. The DC started with unusual questions and later asked whether the second Customs Officer had noted down facts from each call. From what I know, D made many calls that were mostly unsuccessful. The DC also asked why he had not noted down the reason for each unsuccessful call. The second Customs Officer replied that the calls were unsuccessful, so he did not have to write them down. The DC then asked why he had written down the phone calls. He said it was his duty to write everything down. Mr. Raffell later told the other pupils and me that defendants were normally not allowed to make that many phone calls, more or less one phone call. He also said that the call should be private and not written down.
On the third day, D felt sick. Because he was unwell, the court adjourned until Thursday after some argument about the case.
On the fourth day, it began with the DC’s examination-in-chief of D. The DC started with basic questions like: “What’s your job?” and “Are you married?” Then, after the DC asked other questions, I also heard during the process that D was framed, which I do not believe. His lawyer told him to answer “IDK” to questions related to the parcel, too. After this, we had Mr. Raffell’s cross-examination, during which there was some arguing with the judge about whether D lied. Mr. Raffell also focused on inconsistencies. When first asked in the VRI-transcript, D did say the name of the parcel sender, but when asked one day later, he said, “I don’t know” and “I don’t remember.” D also evaded telling the truth many times. At first, when asked a question about his knowledge of drugs and the parcel, he said yes, and after four minutes, he was asked again, and he said “I don’t know” again. The main point is simple: he avoided the truth. Mr. Raffell then said that whatever D says is nonsense. After this, the DC re-examined D. This period was very boring. After that, the judge asked a few more questions before the DC asked again. The DC’s re-examination was overall really boring.
On the fifth day, we had the prosecution closing. The key points were that Lau Chi Kit may have been imaginary, the story about the girlfriend’s daughter’s gift may also have been fictitious, and even if Lau Chi Kit had been real, that would mean D had been protecting him for three years. D said he was framed, but if that were true, wouldn’t he have told the customs officer at the start? D’s answers also seemed nonsensical and silly.
On the sixth day, we had the defence closing, whereas the DC was somewhat unrelated and odd. In the afternoon, we had the summing-up by Deputy High Court Judge Mr. Benson Choi. He explained the speeches of counsel, and he also helped frame the main issues for the jury to think about.
On the seventh day, we had the end of the summing-up and the judge’s directions to the jury before they went out. Before this happened, the judge explained what the jury had to do and how they should approach their decision. Then I went back to Pacific Chambers, and after 1.5 to 2 hours of waiting, it ended in a 5–2 conviction. Sentencing will be on November 30, 2026.
Finally, I think this experience helped me better understand what it was like to be in the High Court as a “mini-mini” or “mini” pupil. It gave me a clearer idea of how a trial was carried out from beginning to end and what it was like to observe counsel and the judge at work. Work. Overall, Mr. Raffell liked arguing with the judge; the DC’s questions were weird, and D was evasive.
Alpha's Sphere 