Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The application was refused because the matters raised are essentially factual disputes previously considered and determined at trial and on appeal and do not involve a point of law of great and general importance as required by s32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance dismissed a magistracy appeal against conviction for possessing a 30-cm chopper as an offensive weapon with intent to use it unlawfully.
The magistrate committed legal error by focusing on the legality of the later formal arrest and on whether the person actually committed unlawful assembly rather than whether the arresting officer, at the moment of stopping/subduing, had an objectively reasonable basis (under s54(2)/s50 principles) to suspect commission of an offence; the magistrate also improperly weighed collateral matters (another officer's use of force and policing tactics) and made impermissible factual determinations at the no‑case stage. Those errors justify allowing the appeal and remitting the case for rehearing befo…
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a magistracy appeal by two appellants convicted of assaulting and resisting police officers, upholding findings on duty, credibility, and sentence.
Appeal allowed because the trial judge's principal factual findings about credibility and the sequence of events were unsafe: multiple important aspects were inconsistent with the CCTV and the evidence showed no adequate basis for the initial police stop under s54, making the conviction for assault in the execution of duty and rejection of self-defence unsustainable.
Source excerpt
Appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and factual conclusions: evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant knew the restraining persons were police and intentionally resisted; police force used was within reasonable bounds given the appellant's active and sustained resistance; there was no basis to overturn convictions or to reduce the custodial sentences which were not manifestly excessive.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance held, on a voir dire, that the alleged admission made after arrest was voluntary and admissible despite the defendant’s claim of police assault.
The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility and factual findings as reasonable and supported by the totality of the evidence (including that videos did not record the decisive moments); the judge did not commit a legal or logical error warranting interference and the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction stands.
Source excerpt
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge wrongly curtailed defence cross-examination and misapplied the Rules and Directions and POL-973 by failing to treat the circumstances as engaging Rule II (requiring a caution) given that police had reasonable grounds to suspect offences; that procedural error and restriction of defence questioning rendered the admission of the contested statements and the conviction unsafe, warranting quashing of conviction and sentence.
Source excerpt
The Court held the magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witness and rejection of the appellant's account was not plainly wrong; the prosecution proved the elements of resisting a police officer beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and eight‑week sentence were upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
