Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate review standard

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2024

香港特別行政區訴蔡國佳

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 642
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA345/2024

CCTV footage objectively captured the appellant removing a shoe box from the shop, placing it into his cart, walking out of the shop and only replacing the item after being confronted by security; those facts established both the physical act and the necessary intent to dishonestly appropriate the item beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant's significant prior theft convictions justified an 8-month custodial sentence which was not manifestly excessive.
12 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING (黎智英) (D1)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2024

The Court held that Hong Kong should not follow Ziegler or Abortion Services; constitutional challenges must proceed via established rule/decision challenge stages applying the Hysan proportionality test; there is no freestanding requirement to conduct separate operational proportionality assessments of arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence where the underlying law and decisions are constitutionally secure; the defendants' appeals are dismissed.
19 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴姚合全

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA484/2023

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's acceptance of the enforcement officer's clear, consistent oral evidence was supported by an authentic high‑definition video and photograph that visibly showed the appellant smoking and discarding a white object; there was no irrationality or material error in the trial judge's findings and no basis for appellate interference.
15 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴關銘恆

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA585/2021

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge reasonably accepted clear, consistent evidence from multiple independent lay witnesses who identified the appellant as one of five attackers; the video evidence admitted under s65C did not exculpate the appellant; joint participation could be inferred from the contemporaneous concerted conduct; there was no legal basis for appellate interference with the judge's credibility and factual findings.
8 Jun 2022

香港特別行政區訴黃琪昌

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA524/2021

The trial judge correctly accepted the victims' credible evidence that the appellant's false claim of it being his birthday was an inducement to their gifts; that finding was not illogical or impossible and accordingly the convictions are upheld and the appeal dismissed.
29 Sept 2021

RE YUNANIK

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV536/2020

The judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant's proposed grounds were bare assertions unsupported by evidence, raised factual issues for the Board rather than public law errors, and therefore disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of viable grounds to reverse the judge.
8 Jul 2019

MD MONJU SHEIKH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 749
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP57/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay was substantial and inexcusable and he advanced no grounds or submissions showing any realistic prospect of success; the Court of Appeal confines review to the grounds put forward by the applicant and will not re-hear the Board's factual credibility findings.
13 Jan 2017

LAW CHI CHING v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW CHI CHING v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV221/2015

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge was plainly wrong in assessing that 'a few hundred' readers could link the article to the plaintiff on the available evidence; a realistic figure was 'a few tens' likely not exceeding 100. Because extent of publication is a material factor in assessing general damages and there was no evidence to apportion psychiatric causation to the prior police investigation, the proper reduction of general damages was from HK$700,000 to HK$450,000.
1 Nov 2016

香港特別行政區訴陳迪威

Citation

香港特別行政區訴陳迪威
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2016

The magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witness' direct, consistent short‑distance observation together with physical residue evidence met the beyond reasonable doubt standard; there was no demonstrable error in the magistrate's factual or credibility findings and the sentence of HK$4,000 was not manifestly excessive, therefore the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
4 May 2016

香港特別行政區訴鄧德全

Citation

香港特別行政區訴鄧德全
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA493/2015

The trial magistrate's findings that the police witnesses were credible and that the appellant's account was inconsistent with both the contemporaneous medical evidence and the version put to the police witness were reasonable and rational; there was no misdirection or illogicality in the credibility assessment or in sentencing. Therefore the conviction and the four‑week custodial sentence stand.