HKSAR v. TSUI WING

HKSAR v. TSUI WING

The convictions were quashed because the evidence showed the appellant was lapsing into unconsciousness during the period of detention so that the prosecution failed to prove he knew he was under arrest and thus could not have formed the intent to resist, and it was doubtful he acted recklessly to cause the damage;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. TSUI WING
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: Tsui Wing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 March 1998
Case Number
HCMA83/1998
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal (court of First Instance, Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal — Convictions Under Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
Legal Topics
Resisting Arrest, Criminal Damage, Voluntary Intoxication, Automatism, Recklessness, Mens Rea, Safety of Conviction
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Evidence Appellate Review Resisting Arrest Criminal Damage Voluntary Intoxication Automatism Recklessness +2 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Tsui Wing

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal (court of First Instance, Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal — Convictions Under Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant had requisite mens rea to resist arrest given semi‑conscious state
  2. 2 Whether criminal damage conviction could stand absent proof of recklessness or intent
  3. 3 Whether automatism or involuntary conduct caused by self‑administered drugs negates liability for these offences

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were quashed because the evidence showed the appellant was lapsing into unconsciousness during the period of detention so that the prosecution failed to prove he knew he was under arrest and thus could not have formed the intent to resist, and it was doubtful he acted recklessly to cause the damage; consequently the convictions were unsafe and set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.

Orders

  • Convictions for resisting arrest and for criminal damage set aside.