HKSAR v. TANG KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. TANG KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER

The magistrate’s findings that the appellants acted in concert and that the act of splashing the liquid was either within the general contemplation of the joint venture or was deliberately adopted and encouraged by the appellants are supported by the evidence and not open to successful challenge on appeal; accordingly the convictions for criminal intimidation are upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. TANG KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: TANG KWAI CHOI; 2nd Appellant: LEE CHI KIT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 March 2001
Case Number
HCMA130/2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to Court of First Instance on Convictions (appeal Against Sentence Abandoned)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Criminal Intimidation, Theft, Joint Venture/joint Enterprise Liability, Evidential Sufficiency
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Appeal Joint Enterprise Criminal Intimidation Theft Joint Venture/joint Enterprise Liability Evidential Sufficiency

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

TANG KWAI CHOI

1st Appellant

LEE CHI KIT

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to Court of First Instance on Convictions (appeal Against Sentence Abandoned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants can be held liable for a co-actor's act under joint venture/common intention
  2. 2 Whether the act of splashing urine constituted criminal intimidation
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's factual findings were open to the appeal court

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate’s findings that the appellants acted in concert and that the act of splashing the liquid was either within the general contemplation of the joint venture or was deliberately adopted and encouraged by the appellants are supported by the evidence and not open to successful challenge on appeal; accordingly the convictions for criminal intimidation are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed in respect of both appellants.
  • Appeal against theft conviction dismissed.