香港特別行政區 訴 雷启添

香港特別行政區 訴 雷启添

The trial judge rationally rejected the appellant's work‑use explanation, accepted expert evidence that the laser pen could injure eyes at up to 40 metres, and found the appellant's appearance at protest sites with the pen and other items demonstrated preparedness to use it as a weapon; those findings supported...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3495
Parties
Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Appellant: 雷启添
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 December 2021
Case Number
HCMA159/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal — Conviction / Appeal Against Conviction to High Court (originating From Magistrates' Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Offensive Weapon in Public, Intention to Use Weapon to Harm, Evidence and Credibility, Expert Evidence on Weapon Capability
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Public Order Offensive Weapons Possession of Offensive Weapon in Public Intention to Use Weapon to Harm Evidence and Credibility Expert Evidence on Weapon Capability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Respondent

雷启添

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal — Conviction / Appeal Against Conviction to High Court (originating From Magistrates' Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the laser pen was possessed for a lawful work purpose
  2. 2 Whether the defendant possessed the laser pen as an offensive weapon intended for use to harm
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's adverse credibility and factual findings were justifiable and should be interfered with on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge rationally rejected the appellant's work‑use explanation, accepted expert evidence that the laser pen could injure eyes at up to 40 metres, and found the appellant's appearance at protest sites with the pen and other items demonstrated preparedness to use it as a weapon; those findings supported conviction under Public Order Ordinance s33(1) and (2) and warranted dismissal of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under Public Order Ordinance (Cap.245) s33(1) and (2) affirmed