Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 黃燕芳

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA82/2021

The High Court upheld the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion: the judge correctly considered the extent of obstruction (1.44m2), the busy pedestrian‑bridge location, the appellant's plea and personal circumstances, and relevant precedents; HKD300 per count (HKD600 total) with a six‑month payment period was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Source excerpt

• Unlicensed hawking
• Obstruction in public place
• Sentencing discretion
• Guilty plea mitigation
• Prior convictions

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. LAW LAM MAN

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA136/2018

刑事上訴中，法院撤銷以妨礙交通定罪的裁決，並認為原審對「合法權限或合理辯解」的證據處理不足，不下令重審。

• Obstruction of traffic
• Lawful excuse
• Burden of proof
• Standard of proof
• Retrial
• Quashing conviction

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. TANG MAN KIT

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA534/2007

Appeal against conviction for impersonating a public officer under s 22 of the Summary Offences Ordinance was dismissed; the trial findings were upheld.

• Impersonation of public officer
• Credibility of witnesses
• Witness statement omissions
• Right to silence
• Appellate deference to factual findings
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI WAH

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA1255/2004

The Court of First Instance dismissed a magistracy appeal after the appellant sought to abandon it on bail, holding that s117 of the Magistrates Ordinance did not permit abandonment in that situation.

• Disorderly behaviour
• Possession of offensive weapon
• Plea of guilty
• Sentence calculation
• Abandonment of appeal
• Magistrates ordinance s117

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. HO CHUN BONG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA205/2002

Appeal against conviction for persistent telephone calls dismissed. The court held that reasonable cause under section 20(c) is judged objectively and upheld the magistrate’s findings.

• Persistent telephone calls
• Reasonable cause
• Onus of proof
• Evidence admissibility
• Credibility
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. LAI CHI KEUNG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA1039/1996

Appeal dismissed. The court upheld convictions for refusing a breath specimen and for dumping rubbish, finding no reasonable excuse and no error in the magistrate’s findings.

• Refusal to provide breath specimen
• Reasonable excuse for non-compliance
• Hospital patient protection for medical objection to tests
• Littering/dumping rubbish
• Evaluation of conflicting witness evidence
• Breath-sample-refusal

Read case analysis

THE QUEEN v. TSANG LING HO and Another

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA24/1996

Appeal against convictions for hawking without a licence and obstruction was dismissed, but the confiscation order for the private car was set aside as disproportionate.

• Hawking without licence
• Obstruction
• Confiscation of property
• Fines
• Proportionality in sentencing
• Appeal against conviction and sentence

Read case analysis

THE QUEEN v. LAU MAN CHING

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA636/1991

On appeal from a magistracy conviction for theft, the court held the circumstantial evidence did not prove dishonest appropriation beyond reasonable doubt and quashed the conviction and sentence.

• Theft
• Circumstantial evidence
• Res gestae
• Summary offences ordinance s.30
• Quashing conviction
• Circumstantial-evidence

Read case analysis

THE QUEEN v. LIU HON FAT AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA276/1991

上訴法院裁定，控方未能證明《簡易程序治罪條例》第6B條所要求的“authorized price”，定罪被撤銷。

• Authorized price
• Admissions under statute
• Section 6b summary offences ordinance
• Section 65c criminal procedure ordinance
• Sufficiency of prosecution evidence
• Conviction quashed

Read case analysis

THE QUEEN v. SIU KAM LAM

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA1706/1988

Hong Kong appellate court reduced hawking obstruction fines for first offenders to $600, upheld higher fines for repeat offenders, and reduced one minimal-obstruction case to $400.

• Hawking obstruction
• Sentencing
• Fines
• Consistency of sentencing
• Criminal-law
• Public-order

Read case analysis