Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights compatibility

Legal area

Court

14 May 2018

HKSAR v. WAN THOMAS

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 15
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2017

"Visitors" in Rule 203 must be read with Rule 48 and means "relatives and friends"; "friends" includes not only personal acquaintances but also persons who have been requested to visit by the prisoner or his relative, who wish to provide moral or material support consistent with the statutory purposes and whom the prisoner is willing to receive; appellants fell within that definition so their statements were not misrepresentations and convictions were quashed.
14 May 2018

HKSAR v. GUAN QIAOYONG

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 15
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2017

'Visitors' in Rule 203 must be read in context with Rule 48 to mean 'relatives and friends'; 'friends' is not limited to prior personal acquaintances and includes persons (a) requested to visit by the prisoner or his relatives, (b) wishing to provide moral or material support consistent with the purposes of visits, and (c) by whom the prisoner is willing to be visited; appellants met that definition so their visit slips were not dishonest and convictions were quashed.
16 Apr 2015

KEEN LLOYD HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Citation

KEEN LLOYD HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL82/2013

The court refused the respondents' proposed remedial interpretation because it would eliminate a core legislative distinction between domestic and non-domestic premises, convert other warrantless powers into warrant-based ones, and require additional textual modifications and policy evaluations that amount to legislative amendment; therefore the remedy sought was impermissible and must be left to the legislature. The court entertained the application to vary its prior judgment but declined to alter the substantive relief by remedial interpretation.
25 Jun 2009

HKSAR v. CHAN MING LOK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN MING LOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA225/2009

Although the magistrate may have risked relying on the questionable category "suitable for causing injury", the appellant's admissions that he carried the knife for self‑defence supported an inference of intention to use it as a weapon; in the absence of imminent danger there was no lawful authority or reasonable excuse, so conviction was properly maintained; sentence was excessive and reduced from 6 to 4 months given mitigating features.
11 Apr 2000

HKSAR v. MARIA REMEDIOS COADY

Citation

HKSAR v. MARIA REMEDIOS COADY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC119/1999

The grievous harm rule — that an intent to cause really serious bodily injury suffices for murder — is a defensible part of the common law and is not incompatible with Articles 5(1), 10 or 11(1) of the Bill of Rights; therefore the trial judge's conventional jury direction on mens rea was correct and the appellant's challenge to that direction fails.
26 Jun 1995

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG TAK-CHOI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG TAK-CHOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC457/1994

s.76(1) CPO, read in context with s.75 and the Fourth Schedule and the Mental Health Ordinance, is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights; mandatory admission under s.76(1) serves legitimate interests (assessment, treatment, and protecting public interest by enabling future trial) and is subject to MHO safeguards and discharge mechanisms, so permanent stay is inappropriate.
3 Apr 1995

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HUI KIN HONG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HUI KIN HONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC52/1995

Section 10(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is compatible with the Bill of Rights: the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients (Crown servant status and unreasonable incommensurate standard of living or disproportionate assets) beyond reasonable doubt; the statutory requirement that the accused give a satisfactory explanation is a proportionate, necessary and limited departure from the normal onus and therefore Bill‑consistent. The presumption in s.10(2) must be construed restrictively to require that the proven facts make it more likely than not that the assets were held on…
9 Sept 1994

R. v. TO KWAN HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

R. v. TO KWAN HANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA945/1993

Section 18(1) of the Public Order Ordinance is consistent with Article 17 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights; the police cordon was lawfully established under the Police Force Ordinance s.10 and was a proportionate and necessary measure to preserve public peace; the appellants actively participated in a rush on the cordon and their conduct satisfied the statutory requirement of being likely to cause a reasonable person to fear a breach of the peace; convictions are therefore upheld.
2 Sept 1994

FUNG CHAN KI, RICHARD v. CHOW TAT MING, THOMAS

Citation

FUNG CHAN KI, RICHARD v. CHOW TAT MING, THOMAS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2312/1994

Judicial review applications were dismissed: Regulation 9(7) and the statutory election‑petition scheme operate so that challenges to nomination validity are to be pursued by election petition; Regulation 9(7) is intra vires; applicants' contention for immediate judicial review was rejected to preserve statutory electoral procedures and integrity; therefore motions dismissed and costs to be heard.
6 Apr 1993

WONG HIU CHOR AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG HIU CHOR AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA227/1992

Convictions were unsafe because the magistrate did not indicate whether she relied on the s.35A presumption or what standard she applied and the acquittal of D3 combined with the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to the appellants' intent; accordingly the convictions were quashed and sentences set aside.