HKSAR v. KWAN TAK CHEUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. KWAN TAK CHEUNG
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 16 February 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) Against Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA105/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 16 February 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) Against Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA105/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The magistrate's detailed credibility findings rejecting the appellant's account and accepting prosecution witnesses were entitled to deference; on that basis conviction was inevitable. The fine of $750 was a lawful and proportionate sentence given the low-end injuries, domestic context, mitigation and the appellant's means.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Magistrate's conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm upheld
- Magistrate's sentence of a fine of $750 confirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Raymond Cheng, Senior Government Counsel, Department of JusticeKWAN Tak-cheung
AppellantAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: HKD 750
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm / Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) Against Magistrate's Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate's credibility findings were open to the court on appeal
- 02
Whether the appellant acted in lawful self-defence
- 03
Whether the sentence (fine of $750) was appropriate
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant contended he acted in self-defence after the boyfriend made a jabbing motion; he pushed the boyfriend into a chair and a struggle ensued causing injury.
- Respondent
- Prosecution maintained appellant pushed the boyfriend to the floor and punched him in the head; magistrate accepted prosecution witnesses and found appellant acted with hostility and anger; a fine was appropriate given low-end injuries and appellant's means.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law appellate practice
Appellate courts must give deference to the trial magistrate's findings on credibility where the magistrate had the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses
- 02
Criminal law principle
Self-defence is lawful only where the defendant holds a reasonable belief of threat and uses proportionate force
- 03
Sentencing principles/common law
Sentencing must reflect culpability, the nature of the offence, the injury caused, mitigation and the offender's means
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The magistrate's detailed credibility findings rejecting the appellant's account and accepting prosecution witnesses were entitled to deference; on that basis conviction was inevitable. The fine of $750 was a lawful and proportionate sentence given the low-end injuries, domestic context, mitigation and the appellant's means.
Obiter and limits
- Appellant's conduct was driven by anger over perceived disrespect by his daughter
- The incident arose from a domestic dispute and was a momentary loss of temper which, while understandable, was not excusable
- The magistrate's finding that the offence was unlikely to recur because the appellant now lives apart from his family
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
- Appeal dismissed
- Magistrate's conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm upheld
- Magistrate's sentence of a fine of $750 confirmed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 16 February 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 16 February 2007
bjbj HCMA 105/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2007 ____
HKSAR and KWAN Tak-cheung ____ Before: Hon Wright, J., in Court Date of Hearing: 16 February 2007 Date of Judgment: 16 February 2007 ___
JUDGMENT ___ The appellant appeals his conviction after trial on a single charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He further appeals of the sentence, a fine of $750. It was the prosecution's case at trial that the appellant had assaulted his 20 year old daughter's 21 year old boyfriend. There was no disagreement at trial that the incident came about as a result of a dispute between the appellant and his daughter over her sleeping arrangements nor that the boyfriend intervened in that dispute. The nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the boyfriend were admitted by way of hospital medical reports produced by consent. The appellant s daughter and her boyfriend both testified that, during the dispute, the appellant had pushed the boyfriend to the floor and then leant over him and punched him in the head. The appellant, who was represented at trial, testified that when the boyfriend had intervened in the dispute he, the boyfriend, had made jabbing motion towards the appellant as a result of which the appellant, acting in effectively what he suggested was self defence, had pushed the boyfriend into a chair: the boyfriend then got up, pushed the appellant, they both fell to the floor a struggle ensued during which time the boyfriend was injured. As the magistrate correctly observed this was a matter which turned on the credibility of the
witnesses. The magistrate had the advantage of seeing and hearing all of the witnesses. I do not. In a very careful statement of findings in which he meticulously analysed the evidence, including the discrepancies in the evidence, he indicated that he accepted the evidence of the daughter and the boyfriend, rejecting that of the appellant. In particular he found that the appellant had acted "with hostility and anger". He did so because, the magistrate found, the appellant was upset by the lack of respect shown by his daughter. He found support, rightly so, for his conclusion in the fact that, such was the appellant's anger, after the incident the appellant's daughter, and her boyfriend and the appellant s 12-year-old son, who had also been present in the flat, had left the flat and waited downstairs in the lift lobby. On the evidence the magistrate was entitled to make the finding as to which witnesses he believed. Once he rejected the evidence of the accused but accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses conviction was inevitable. In regard to sentence, the appellant had two 25-year-old dissimilar convictions. The magistrate was satisfied that the incident arose from a domestic dispute which was unlikely to reoccur as the appellant now lives apart from his family members. This matter arose from the appellant s momentary loss of temper, perhaps understandable but not
excusable or justifiable. He also found, correctly, that the injuries were at the bottom end of the scale. The imposition of a fine was entirely appropriate in the circumstances. Given the level of the appellant's earnings as disclosed to the magistrate, the fine imposed met the justice of the case. The appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed and the magistrate s orders confirmed. (A R WRIGHT) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Raymond Cheng, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the HKSAR Appellant in person
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk i$&8 EnS< EnS< HCMA.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.