THE QUEEN v. LAU FAT WAI AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. LAU FAT WAI AND ANOTHER

There was no evidence identifying which appellant uttered the threatening words and no evidence that the other appellant associated himself with those words; therefore the prosecution failed to prove both were guilty and the convictions could not stand; appeals allowed and convictions quashed.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LAU FAT WAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Appellant: LAU FAT WAI; 2nd Appellant: LEUNG KAM CHUN; Respondent (crown): THE QUEEN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 1993
Case Number
HCMA282/1993
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Hearing on Appeal to the High Court (appellate Jurisdiction); Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Criminal Intimidation, Acting in Concert, Identification of Offender, Joint Liability, Acquittal on Insufficient Identification
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Intimidation Acting in Concert Identification of Offender Joint Liability Acquittal on Insufficient Identification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

LAU FAT WAI

1st Appellant

LEUNG KAM CHUN

2nd Appellant

THE QUEEN

Respondent (crown)

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Hearing on Appeal to the High Court (appellate Jurisdiction); Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved which of two defendants uttered the threat
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were acting in concert such that both could be convicted for the threat
  3. 3 Whether absence of evidence identifying the speaker requires quashing of conviction

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence identifying which appellant uttered the threatening words and no evidence that the other appellant associated himself with those words; therefore the prosecution failed to prove both were guilty and the convictions could not stand; appeals allowed and convictions quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Convictions quashed