Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of charge

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. IP, ANTHONY CHUN HIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5043
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA51/2024

The court held that s64(6)(c) PDPO is properly construed to require only that the material disclosure caused the data subject reasonably to be concerned for his or her safety or well‑being (a single‑layer requirement), not the two‑layer interpretation imposed by the Magistrate; on rehearing the published posts together with contemporaneous hostile calls and conduct provided sufficient evidence that the appellant intended and caused the specified harms, so the appellant's challenge to the convictions failed and the prosecution's case stated appeal succeeded to substitute conviction on Charge 1…
19 Feb 2024

香港特別行政區訴蔣瑛楠

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 534
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA24/2021

After reviewing the trial record de novo with appropriate deference to the trial judge's advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses, the judge's credibility findings were not perverse; the appellant's oral admission and cautioned statements were voluntary and admissible; circumstantial and corroborating evidence permitted the inference that the items belonged to another and that the appellant intended permanent deprivation; the refusal to hold a Newton hearing and the amendment to the charge did not produce unfairness — accordingly conviction and sentence were upheld.
20 Aug 2021

香港特別行政區訴雷方鈺

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA51/2021

The judge properly found that PW2's contemporaneous observation and prompt photograph, together with the admitted fact that the appellant was driving vehicle SN507 at the scene, constituted reliable and corroborated identification linking SN507 to the dangerous driving; minor discrepancies about colour did not undermine the core evidence and the prosecution proved dangerous driving beyond reasonable doubt.
23 Mar 2021

香港特別行政區訴曾兄為

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA379/2020

The court allowed the amendment to the charge to include Huagingshan Road and, on a re‑hearing of the evidence before the trial judge, concluded that the appellant's driving—driving downhill for about 2–3 km with an unsecured excavator—fell far below the standard of a competent careful driver and was obviously dangerous under s37 RTO; the conviction for dangerous driving was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
23 Jan 2018

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIU TUNG, ANTHONY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA463/2016

The magistrate erred in law by refusing to receive and consider evidence to determine the actual speed after the respondent pleaded guilty to an amended summary of facts that did not constitute an agreed basis of plea; because there remained a clear, material dispute on speed that could materially affect sentence the magistrate had the power and should have exercised his discretion to hold a Newton or Newton-like hearing to determine the true facts before sentencing.
11 May 2015

YEUNG KWOK KEUNG DENNIS v. CHIROPRACTORS COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

YEUNG KWOK KEUNG DENNIS v. CHIROPRACTORS COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/2014

The Court held that charge (a), properly construed in context, could legitimately encompass the allegation that the appellant failed to perform a neurological examination and thus rendered treatment inappropriate; the appellant was given sufficient notice and opportunity to meet the case and there was no procedural unfairness; accordingly the findings of misconduct on charges (a)-(c) and the disciplinary order were upheld.
23 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. TAM CHI CHOI

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM CHI CHOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC381/2008

The trial judge erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of intent to steal when the charge alleged intent to cause unlawful damage; the charge did not amount to or include an allegation of intent to steal for the purposes of s51(2) CPO and amendment or substitution at this late stage would cause substantial prejudice, therefore the conviction must be quashed.
19 May 2008

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA19/2008

The amendment altered material particulars (time, place and nature) effectively substituting one incident for another; because consent under s.33(5) had been given in respect of the original particulars and no fresh consent was obtained, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the amended charge and the conviction was quashed.
2 Feb 2007

HKSAR v. LUI WING BIU

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI WING BIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1029/2006

The magistrate's detailed and contemporaneous credibility findings, including that the complainant's error was an innocent mistake, were reasonable and supported the convictions; therefore there was no reasonable doubt and the appeal against conviction must be dismissed.
10 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. ZHANG WENJING

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHANG WENJING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1060/2004

Dock identification by PW1 was inadmissible on the facts; however PW2's evidence of the appellant's admission that she was looking after the shop and his observation that she received payment on behalf of the business established that she 'joined in' the business in contravention of her permit; the court properly amended the charge under s119(1)(d) and dismissed the appeal.