Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affray

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. NGAI KENG SUM LANCE

Citation

HKSAR v. NGAI KENG SUM LANCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA224/2016

The appellate court, on rehearing the papers and CCTV, found no material error in the magistrate's assessment of credibility or her factual findings; the magistrate had properly considered the appellant's good character and the mixed cautioned statements and the evidence supported the inference that the appellant intended to use the mop stick offensively; accordingly the conviction for possession of an offensive weapon was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
26 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. YIP KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KAM WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC413/2007

The court held that the judge's notional global starting point and partial consecutive sentencing produced a manifestly excessive total for D1 given the two woundings arose in a single, short melee and the injuries were not severe; therefore the wounding sentences should run concurrently yielding 16 months. For D2 the judge failed to sufficiently distinguish his lesser culpability and the limited circumstances of the affray; the 15-month sentence was excessive and was reduced to immediate release (time served).
27 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. LEE TIN HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TIN HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1231/2006

The police evidence and other testimony established that by the time of police arrival the appellants continued fighting in a manner not reasonably necessary and thus self-defence had ceased, supporting convictions for unlawful fighting (affray).
25 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. LEUNG KIU YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KIU YAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA807/1999

The Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, reasonably resolved inconsistencies, and legitimately concluded that the medical report did not alter the 2nd Appellant's credibility or the identification evidence; there was no basis for the appellate court to disturb the convictions.
8 Aug 1996

LUK CHUN YUE v. R.

Citation

LUK CHUN YUE v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC384/1995

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a credible or sufficient explanation for the delay (the assertion of counsel's advice was implausible given that preliminary grounds had been drafted), lack of funds was not a proper reason, and the preliminary grounds did not disclose arguable grounds of appeal.
14 Dec 1995

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG TUNG WING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG TUNG WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC384/1995

The trial judge properly exercised his discretion to admit the records of interview after considering voluntariness, properly treated and weighed both inculpatory and exculpatory parts of the mixed statements in accordance with authority, and the totality of the admissible evidence including admissions and agreed factual material supported the convictions for unlawful wounding and affray; there was no material misdirection and leave to appeal is refused.
29 Apr 1992

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN NGOC CUONG AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN NGOC CUONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR13/1990

For riot offences in detention centres the appropriate sentence after trial is higher than the District Court sentences imposed here and a five-year custodial sentence is an appropriate benchmark for riot after trial in these circumstances, although no order was made due to delay. For the drug offences the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Chenq Yeunq conversion to No.3 heroin; starting points should have been within the 8–12 year bracket. Having applied reductions for delay, plea and other review factors, the court substituted six years for Tse Ka Wah and five years for Chan Chu Ming…
5 Oct 1990

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHI KWAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHI KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC199/1990

The Court held the trial judge properly considered the cautioned statement and credibility issues, reasonably found a warning was given and DPC459 to be truthful, and therefore the conviction was not unsafe; the application for leave to appeal is refused.
7 Feb 1990

THE QUEEN v. LAM HAU HING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM HAU HING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1512/1989

Conviction: DPC Leung was an innocent party present who reasonably feared injury (drew revolver) and thus the terror element of affray was proved; Sentence appeals: magistrate's chambers discussion left counsel and appellants with an impression that fines were likely for those with clear records, the magistrate failed to record the discussion, that impression influenced guilty pleas and produced a miscarriage of justice in sentencing, therefore appellate court reduced and substituted sentences to remedy the prejudice.
7 Nov 1989

THE QUEEN v. LE VAN LUONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LE VAN LUONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/1989

The Court held the trial judges' starting point of four years before mitigation was excessive in these circumstances; having regard to substantial mitigation (youth, early plea, limited injuries, restricted participation and evidential weakness) while preserving deterrence and protection of staff, the appropriate custodial sentence for each appellant was 2 years imprisonment rather than 3 years.