HKSAR v. LEUNG KONG KEI AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEUNG KONG KEI AND OTHERS

1st appellant's appeal dismissed because evidence from PW1 supported resisting conviction and the attempted arrest was lawful; acquittal on assault was a benefit of doubt and did not render the arrest unlawful. 3rd appellant's conviction quashed because the magistrate failed to make necessary specific findings resolving direct conflicts between PW1 and PW7 and improperly treated a joint charge as severable without amendment. Appeals by 2nd and 4th appellants on costs dismissed because magistrate properly exercised s3(1)(c) discretion in light of appellants' unruly conduct and the bound over order.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEUNG KONG KEI AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: LEUNG KONG KEI; 2nd Appellant: KOON CHI KWOK; 3rd Appellant: TANG CHI HANG; 4th Appellant: SANTOS BASSINIO PETER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 December 2001
Case Number
HCMA1253/2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)
Outcome
1st appellant's appeal dismissed; 3rd appellant's appeal allowed and conviction and sentence set aside; 2nd and 4th appellants' appeal on costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Obstructing Police, Resisting Arrest, Assault on Police, Lawfulness of Arrest, Costs in Criminal Cases, Joint Charging and Severance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Costs Law Obstructing Police Resisting Arrest Assault on Police Lawfulness of Arrest Costs in Criminal Cases +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LEUNG KONG KEI

1st Appellant

KOON CHI KWOK

2nd Appellant

TANG CHI HANG

3rd Appellant

SANTOS BASSINIO PETER

4th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction for resisting is inconsistent with acquittal for assault
  2. 2 Whether attempted arrest was lawful such that resistance constitutes an offence
  3. 3 Whether magistrate failed to resolve conflicting witness evidence before convicting the 3rd appellant

Ratio Decidendi

1st appellant's appeal dismissed because evidence from PW1 supported resisting conviction and the attempted arrest was lawful; acquittal on assault was a benefit of doubt and did not render the arrest unlawful. 3rd appellant's conviction quashed because the magistrate failed to make necessary specific findings resolving direct conflicts between PW1 and PW7 and improperly treated a joint charge as severable without amendment. Appeals by 2nd and 4th appellants on costs dismissed because magistrate properly exercised s3(1)(c) discretion in light of appellants' unruly conduct and the bound over order.

Court Disposition

1st appellant's appeal dismissed; 3rd appellant's appeal allowed and conviction and sentence set aside; 2nd and 4th appellants' appeal on costs dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal by 2nd and 4th appellants on costs dismissed; magistrate's refusal to award costs and decision to bind over affirmed