R. v. YU KIM HUNG and Anothers

R. v. YU KIM HUNG and Anothers

The magistrate lawfully preferred the prosecution witness and his factual findings were not vitiated by legal error; the psychiatrist's opinion was of scant value because it rested on false or incomplete facts; therefore the convictions were properly upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
R. v. YU KIM HUNG and Anothers
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant: YU KIM HUNG; 2nd Appellant: LEUNG YEE YUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 1996
Case Number
HCMA764/1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction (shoplifting) / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court (appellate Review of Magistrate's Conviction)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed
Legal Topics
Shoplifting, Automatism, Psychomotor Seizure, Credibility of Witnesses, Expert Opinion Weight
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Evidence Medical/forensic Evidence Appellate Procedure Shoplifting Automatism Psychomotor Seizure Credibility of Witnesses +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

YU KIM HUNG

1st Appellant

LEUNG YEE YUNG

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction (shoplifting) / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court (appellate Review of Magistrate's Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether magistrate erred in accepting prosecution witness over defendants' version
  2. 2 Whether psychiatric evidence established automatism due to psychomotor seizure
  3. 3 Whether expert opinion based on incomplete or false facts can sustain defence of automatism

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate lawfully preferred the prosecution witness and his factual findings were not vitiated by legal error; the psychiatrist's opinion was of scant value because it rested on false or incomplete facts; therefore the convictions were properly upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions of both appellants upheld