Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assaulting police

Legal area

Court

14 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴丁群洲

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1828
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA299/2022

The trial judge properly accepted the close‑range police evidence that the appellant forcefully pulled and caused a male officer to fall and kicked and scratched a female officer during arrest; those findings proved two counts of assaulting police beyond reasonable doubt. On retrial review, the appellate court found no error in the credibility assessments or in sentencing and therefore upheld the convictions for counts 2 and 3 and the sentence of 8 weeks for each with 2 weeks concurrent, total 10 weeks immediate imprisonment.
3 Aug 2023

香港特別行政區訴謝信誠

Citation

[2023] HKCA 922
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/2021

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge correctly found joint action and intent to treat the police shotgun as the appellant's for his purposes, properly applied Mo Kwong-Sang sentencing guidance given the involvement of a weapon and aggravating factors, and that the 7-year sentence for attempted robbery was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
4 Oct 2021

香港特別行政區訴羅鎮傑

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2893
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA385/2020

The conviction could not stand because (1) the trial judge unlawfully treated the appellant's special‑issue evidence as adopted for the general issue when the appellant did not give general evidence, and (2) the appellant did not receive a fair trial due to his serious hearing impairment and the inadequate manner of communication/interpretation; accordingly conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial ordered.
18 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴陳以晉

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3111
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA251/2020

On rehearing the Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings: prosecution witnesses were honest and reliable, there was no direct evidence police struck the appellant on the head, the trial judge properly assessed reasonableness of force against the chaotic facts and relevant statutory authority (Cap.232 s50), and the trial judge did not improperly shift any legal burden; therefore the conviction for resisting arrest was safe and must be dismissed only in the sense that the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.
26 Sept 2016

香港特別行政區訴朱家言及另三人

Citation

香港特別行政區訴朱家言及另三人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA496/2015

The appeals against sentence were allowed in part: having considered the probation officer reports, the offenders' backgrounds, remorse and prospects for rehabilitation, the court substituted non-custodial disposals — 12 months probation/rehabilitation orders for the first and second appellants with specified supervisory conditions, and 200‑hour community service orders for the third and fourth appellants — because those measures were commensurate with the need for punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation in the circumstances.
2 Sept 2016

香港特別行政區訴阮金正

Citation

香港特別行政區訴阮金正
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA483/2015

On balancing the relevant factors (seriousness, strength and clarity of evidence, delay, prejudice to the appellant, prior detention and mitigation) the court concluded there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction and that ordering a retrial would not be in the public interest; accordingly the prosecution's application for a retrial was refused and the earlier quashing of conviction and sentence stands.
4 Dec 2015

香港特別行政區訴黃智佳

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃智佳
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA353/2015

Court allowed the appeal because the original sentence was excessive given the factual matrix: the appropriate starting point was nine weeks, not three months; after a one‑third reduction for guilty plea the appropriate sentence is six weeks. Voluntary alcohol consumption was not mitigating and the later conviction (sentenced 20 April) should not be treated as an antecedent for the 15 February offending; even if considered it did not make the appellant a repeat offender warranting a higher starting point.
27 May 2004

HKSAR v. YIP SHU KAI

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP SHU KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA897/2003

The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate's detailed findings on credibility and fact were within his discretion, no substantive grounds of insufficiency, unfair trial or bias were established, and an appellate court will not re‑try evidence it was not in a position to assess directly.
14 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. Yeung Man

Citation

HKSAR v. Yeung Man
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Magistrate's findings that the police evidence was consistent, honest and reliable; an appellate court will not substitute its view for the tribunal of fact on credibility absent shown error.