香港特別行政區 訴 梁俊熹及另一人

香港特別行政區 訴 梁俊熹及另一人

The court held (1) the defective statutory description of the offence was amendable and not a nullity; (2) the WhatsApp messages seized and forensically extracted were admissible for the non‑hearsay purpose of proving that messages bearing number 51164458 were sent and, on the totality of evidence (phone found in appellant’s room, SIM registration records, corroborating testimony and matching message threads on multiple phones), the only reasonable inference was that D7 sent the impugned messages; (3) the message content objectively amounted to incitement to commit criminal damage and the requisite intent was proven; and (4) on sentencing, admitting fresh psychiatric evidence, the court...

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 931
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; Appellant (first): 梁俊熹; Appellant (second): 侯羿同
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2024
Case Number
HCMA166/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal — Conviction and Sentence (court of First Instance) / Hearing and Judgment on Conviction and Sentence Appeals
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Incitement, Criminal Damage, Digital Evidence Admissibility, Hearsay Rule, Youth Sentencing, Fresh Evidence
Source Language
CT
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Procedural Law Incitement Criminal Damage Digital Evidence Admissibility Hearsay Rule +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

梁俊熹

Appellant (first)

侯羿同

Appellant (second)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal — Conviction and Sentence (court of First Instance) / Hearing and Judgment on Conviction and Sentence Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment/charge was void or merely defective and amendable
  2. 2 Whether elements of the common law offence of incitement were proven
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of WhatsApp messages and identification of message sender; reliability of forensic extraction (Cellebrite) and chain of custody

Ratio Decidendi

The court held (1) the defective statutory description of the offence was amendable and not a nullity; (2) the WhatsApp messages seized and forensically extracted were admissible for the non‑hearsay purpose of proving that messages bearing number 51164458 were sent and, on the totality of evidence (phone found in appellant’s room, SIM registration records, corroborating testimony and matching message threads on multiple phones), the only reasonable inference was that D7 sent the impugned messages; (3) the message content objectively amounted to incitement to commit criminal damage and the requisite intent was proven; and (4) on sentencing, admitting fresh psychiatric evidence, the court...

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • D7’s conviction for incitement to criminal damage upheld
  • Admit fresh psychiatric reports and disability registration for sentencing review and obtain further suitability report (order for additional report was made during proceedings)