Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 薛俊希

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA270/2023

Accepting PW1's credible technical and factual evidence and the totality of admitted facts, the court concluded the appellant, unauthorised, used the SendPush interface to send five false push notifications which were stored on TVB's managed server and thereby added data and caused the computer system to operate otherwise than as its owner intended; appellant had no honest belief of authorization and no lawful excuse, proof beyond reasonable doubt established, appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Criminal damage (s60(1) crimes ordinance)
• Misuse of computer (s59(1a) crimes ordinance)
• Evidence and credibility
• Jurisdiction and server location
• Requirement for expert evidence

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 黃淦祥

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA71/2024

Photographic and witness evidence proved the appellant intentionally threw eggs and tomatoes causing widespread staining (approximately 1m x 2m) that temporarily impaired the government's building appearance and use; temporary impairment qualifies as 'damage', the appellant had no lawful excuse, and he had the requisite intent or recklessness — conviction must be upheld on retrial standard.

Source excerpt

• Criminal damage
• Lawful excuse
• Mens rea (intent/recklessness)
• Standard of review on appeal

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 馮健如

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC269/2024

Bail was refused because the appeal did not have a realistic prospect of success given the cogent evidence (CCTV footage, D1's confession and the applicant's recorded admissions) and because the trial judge's adverse inference from the applicant's silence was reasonable and unassailable on the material before the court.

Source excerpt

• Handling stolen goods
• Conspiracy to burgle
• Bail pending appeal
• Adverse inference from silence

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 傅錦玲

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA202/2022

The conviction was upheld because the combination of direct and strong environmental circumstantial evidence (appellant's identity card and private DVD found in the flat, observed movement from the flat's direction, and the recovered 800 cigarettes of the same brand) permitted a reasonable inference of joint possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; the appellate court must defer to the trial judge's credibility findings and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Handling dutiable goods
• Possession and joint possession
• Circumstantial evidence
• Credibility of witnesses
• Standard of proof
• Defences of lack of knowledge

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 鄭志恩

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC240/2021

The appeal was refused because the sentencing judge properly applied sentencing principles: the burglary involved an organised and premeditated operation targeting a dwelling with significant loss, justifying a 4‑year starting point reduced by one‑third for plea to 32 months; misuse of another's ID justified a 12‑month sentence after discount; limited concurrency (3 months) was appropriate given separate dates and locations; the aggregate 41‑month term was not manifestly excessive and no arguable ground for leave existed.

Source excerpt

• Burglary (dwelling)
• Use of another's identity card
• Joint enterprise
• Guilty plea discount
• Concurrent and consecutive sentencing
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 沈敏諾

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC45/2021

The trial judge properly rejected the applicant's evidence as inherently implausible and, in light of the applicant's role as sole signatory, lack of evident legitimate income and the circumstances of the withdrawals, correctly found the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime; there is no basis to grant leave to appeal against conviction.

Source excerpt

• Handling proceeds of crime
• Knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe
• Credibility findings and appellate review
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 李建業

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCC168/2019

The court accepted the prosecution evidence (CCTV placing the accused at relevant locations during the ongoing incident, the accused’s recorded admission that he covered CCTV cameras, and supporting contextual evidence) and rejected the defence explanation as implausible; taken together the conduct of covering CCTV while the burglary was ongoing and corroborating evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in the burglary, therefore guilty.

Source excerpt

• Burglary
• Admissibility of confession
• Cctv evidence
• Fingerprint evidence
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 朱明仁

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC362/2017

The presence of the applicant's two right palm prints on the stolen cashbox, combined with the undisputed facts about where the cashbox was found and the applicant's failure to give evidence to explain the prints, permitted the sole irresistible inference that he participated in the burglary and stole the money; consequently the trial judge's guilty inference was correct and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Source excerpt

• Burglary
• Breaking and entering
• Fingerprint evidence
• Circumstantial evidence
• Identification

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 鄭志賢

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA585/2018

The conviction was upheld because objective evidence (video, location outside appellant's land, conduct showing concealment) demonstrated dishonest appropriation with intention to permanently deprive and rebutted the claimed honest belief; the two‑month immediate custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, security impact, lack of remorse and risk of reoffending.

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Intention to permanently deprive
• Dishonesty
• Mistake of right/honest belief
• Privacy concerns related to cctv

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN MAN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC216/2017

Court of Appeal upheld 6-year and 8-year sentences for aggravated burglary and rape, but reduced the composite sentence to 9 years 6 months under the totality principle.

• Aggravated burglary
• Rape
• Totality principle
• Concurrent and consecutive sentences
• Victim impact and mitigation
• Premeditation

Read case analysis