R. v. LI TAK LUNG and Others

R. v. LI TAK LUNG and Others

Appeal allowed for 3rd appellant and dismissed for 1st and 2nd: the convictions of the 1st and 2nd appellants were upheld because the victim had sufficient opportunity (three to four minutes, adequate lighting, continuous observation and pursuit) to identify them and the magistrate properly applied the Turnbull direction; the conviction of the 3rd appellant was quashed because identification was unsatisfactory and unsafe in the round—discrepant police evidence about directions of flight, absence of any mention of a third person in co-defendants’ evidence, unexplained delay before the 3rd was brought to the victim, and a possibly leading police identification created a lurking doubt—so...

Citation
R. v. LI TAK LUNG and Others
Parties
Respondent: The Queen; 1st Appellant: Li Tak Lung; 2nd Appellant: Cheung Leung; 3rd Appellant: Fu Pan Long
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 1995
Case Number
HCMA116/1995
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals against conviction by 1st and 2nd appellants dismissed; appeal by 3rd appellant allowed — conviction quashed and sentence set aside; appeals against sentence by all appellants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Visual Identification, Turnbull Direction, Appeal Against Conviction, Totality Principle, Consecutive Sentences, Humanitarian Grounds
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Immigration Law Evidence Law Sentencing Robbery Visual Identification Turnbull Direction Appeal Against Conviction +3 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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Li Tak Lung

1st Appellant

Cheung Leung

2nd Appellant

Fu Pan Long

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Reliability of visual identification evidence
  2. 2 Whether conviction of 3rd appellant is unsafe
  3. 3 Appropriateness of consecutive sentences and totality

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed for 3rd appellant and dismissed for 1st and 2nd: the convictions of the 1st and 2nd appellants were upheld because the victim had sufficient opportunity (three to four minutes, adequate lighting, continuous observation and pursuit) to identify them and the magistrate properly applied the Turnbull direction; the conviction of the 3rd appellant was quashed because identification was unsatisfactory and unsafe in the round—discrepant police evidence about directions of flight, absence of any mention of a third person in co-defendants’ evidence, unexplained delay before the 3rd was brought to the victim, and a possibly leading police identification created a lurking doubt—so...

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction by 1st and 2nd appellants dismissed; appeal by 3rd appellant allowed — conviction quashed and sentence set aside; appeals against sentence by all appellants dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction by the 1st and 2nd appellants dismissed.
  • Appeal against conviction by the 3rd appellant allowed; conviction for robbery quashed and 12 months sentence set aside.