Step 1
Ask in plain language
Put the question the way you would to a pupil: in English, Traditional Chinese, or a mix of both. Narrow by offence, legislation, court or date if you wish.
AI Powered Legal Research
Hong Kong court judgments, answered with pinpoint authority.
Ask a research question in English or Chinese and receive a considered answer grounded in the judgments themselves — every proposition cited to a neutral citation and paragraph number so it can be checked against the official report.
A research aid for legal practitioners. Results should be verified against the primary source before being relied upon, and nothing on this site constitutes legal advice.
How it works
From question to authority in three steps
Step 2
We find the paragraphs, not just the cases
Every court judgment is indexed paragraph by paragraph and tagged by section — facts, legal principle, mitigation, sentencing calculation, conclusion — so the search lands where the reasoning actually is.
Step 3
Read the answer, then check it yourself
The answer is drawn only from the passages retrieved, with a pinpoint reference in the form [neutral citation, para. N], so every point can be taken straight to the official report and verified before you rely on it.
Why counsel can trust it
Designed for a profession that checks its sources
Generative tools have a known habit of citing cases that do not exist. This service is built around the opposite discipline: the model may summarise, but it may not invent.
No invented authorities
The assistant is instructed to answer solely from the judgment text supplied to it. If the material does not support an answer, it says so rather than filling the gap.
Pinpoint citations as standard
Every proposition is tied to a neutral citation and paragraph number, ready to be checked, quoted and taken into a skeleton argument.
Bilingual by design
Hong Kong judgments are handed down in both languages, and so are your questions. Language is detected automatically and the right fields are searched.
Built for criminal practice
Filters for offence and legislation, and section tags for mitigation and sentencing, reflect how comparable-sentence research is actually done.
Try asking
The kind of questions it is built for
“What sentencing range has the court applied for trafficking in 10–20 g of cocaine where the defendant pleaded guilty?”
“法庭在判刑時如何處理被告的自願認罪及悔意？”
“How have judges treated delay in prosecution as a mitigating factor in fraud cases?”