Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Battery

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴曾維誠及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA485/2024

Video and witness evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants intentionally or recklessly and jointly applied unlawful force by repeatedly and at close range spraying and pouring water at police officers and working journalists, conduct that exceeded any reasonable festival consent; therefore convictions for assault/battery and convictions on all counts were upheld and appeals dismissed.
2 Jun 2025

CHOI LAI SHEUNG 對 CHEUNG CHAU HEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 903
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI302/2021

The court held that the elements of battery were established: defendant intentionally applied direct force. The defendant's psychiatric evidence did not establish automatism or incapacity to know the nature of her act. The defendant had been convicted after trial; under s62 Evidence Ordinance the legal burden shifted to the defendant who failed to rebut the conviction. Liability therefore stands and damages were assessed accordingly.
7 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴楊偉逸

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1373
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA241/2024

The appellate court, on re‑hearing the evidence including CCTV, medical exhibits and witness testimony, concluded the trial judge properly found PW1 credible and that the appellant repeatedly and knowingly touched and gripped PW1 without consent causing pain and injury; those findings supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of common assault.
28 Jun 2024

CHAN SHIU LING 對 SIU CHI WAI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1049
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2733/2020

On the uncontroverted CCTV and the defendant's prior acceptance of the incident narrative in the criminal summary, the court found the defendant committed both assault and battery by throwing the booklet at close range and contacting the plaintiff's face; injuries were minor and the plaintiff materially exaggerated physical and psychiatric consequences, therefore damages were limited to assessed sums and costs were disallowed to the prevailing party.
26 Jan 2024

MAI CHISHENG 對 NG PING LAM

Citation

[2024] HKDC 131
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI198/2016

Court accepted plaintiff's account as essentially credible notwithstanding minor inconsistencies, rejected defendant's self-defence and illegality defences, found defendant chased and struck plaintiff with an angle iron causing the left fourth metacarpal fracture, and awarded damages limited to amounts provable on evidence (PSLA, quantified past loss and modest special damages); future loss claim dismissed for lack of evidential basis.
7 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEUK HEI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA507/2021

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction because the magistrate applied the wrong legal test (treating the offence as assault rather than assessing battery with subjective recklessness), produced internally inconsistent findings as to recklessness across the touches, and failed to give an adequate good character direction; as a result the conviction was unsafe on rehearing.
26 Oct 2022

LAW CHI MAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1231
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2945/2018

The court preferred the police witnesses' evidence and found the Manoeuvre and handcuffing were reasonably necessary and proportionate in the rapidly evolving circumstances; accordingly the defendant established lawful justification for the force and the plaintiff's claims in battery and negligence were dismissed and no damages awarded.
3 Nov 2021

香港特別行政區訴馮耀暉

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA306/2020

On rehearing the court found the prosecution excluded the possibility of accident beyond reasonable doubt: the officer clearly identified himself twice, the CCTV and witness testimony consistently show the appellant deliberately extended his right foot to trip the officer, and the judge properly assessed credibility and context; accordingly the conviction for assaulting a police officer under Cap.232 s63 is safe and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Sept 2021

NG YING MO v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2206/2019

Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish necessity and jurisdictional requirements for pre-action discovery and Norwich Pharmacal relief: plaintiff can identify officers sufficiently by description and serve proceedings at police HQ, affidavit did not show Commissioner likely to be a party, plaintiff lacked a good arguable case on the merits and disclosure would create real doxxing risk; relief would be disproportionate and impermissibly fishing.
9 Aug 2021

香港特別行政區訴何曉朗

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA202/2020

Although the trial judge misstated that an honest but mistaken belief 'must be reasonable', on a full rehearing of the record the appellate judge concluded the evidence (CCTV and witness testimony) established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally (alternatively recklessly) applied unlawful force to PW1 and did not hold a genuine belief that PW1 would have consented; hostility need not be a separate element of battery but the facts supported a finding of hostile manner; appeal against conviction dismissed.