Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of the peace

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴葉浩賢

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA398/2021

Conviction quashed because, on a full re‑hearing of the admitted evidence and videos, and given that the prosecution limited its case to the subjective basis (intent to provoke others under s17B(2)), the accepted evidence did not exclude reasonable alternative inferences and therefore did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to provoke others to breach the peace. The fresh footage CF1 was not admitted and did not alter the assessment; nonetheless the conviction was unsafe on the evidence presented under the pleaded basis.
4 Jul 2022

香港特別行政區訴陸冰溢

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA402/2021

The magistrate's identification from CCTV combined with the contextual evidence (time, crowd, tense police-public relations, sensitive anniversary and immediate police presence) provided a lawful basis to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's act was objectively likely to provoke others and/or manifested intent to incite breach of the peace under s17B(2); the conviction is therefore safe.
4 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. LO KIN MAN (盧建民)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 37
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2021

POO ss 18 and 19 create participatory offences requiring proof that the accused was present and 'took part' with others in the unlawful or riotous assembly with a participatory intent; no extraneous common purpose is required; the basic joint enterprise doctrine cannot be used to convict absent persons as principals for these statutory offences, although extended joint enterprise may operate for more serious further offences; absent actors remain prosecutable under secondary and inchoate liability doctrines; mere presence alone is insufficient for liability though encouragement by presence ca…
4 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. TONG WAI HUNG (湯偉雄)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 37
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2021

POO ss 18 and 19 define participatory offences requiring proof that the accused was present and 'took part' in the unlawful or riotous assembly with a participatory intent; no extraneous common purpose is required; the basic form of joint enterprise cannot be used to convict absent persons as principals though the extended form may fix liability for additional, foreseen offences; absent promoters are liable under secondary and inchoate offences.
16 Oct 2018

WONG CHI FUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA29/2018

Leave to appeal refused because the law permits handcuffing where reasonably necessary to prevent breach of the peace; the Tribunal’s factual findings that the claimant resisted and that a continuing risk justified retention of handcuffs until arrival at the station were open on the evidence and survive objective review, so no arguable point of law was established.
9 Jan 2015

HKSAR v. HO KA KEI RICKY

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KA KEI RICKY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA436/2013

The court refused to grant the s32(2) certificate because the matter involved the application of well‑settled legal principles, Chow Nok Hang did not manifestly disapprove the obiter in Chiu Hin Chung on the facts before it, and no point of law of great and general importance nor substantial and grave injustice was shown to justify certification.
18 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HO KA KEI RICKY

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KA KEI RICKY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA436/2013

The magistrate was entitled to apply the common‑sense category of s17B(2) cases where upskirt filming in a public place is likely to provoke a breach of the peace among nearby members of the public; the discrepancies in evidence were properly found immaterial; conviction is affirmed. On sentence, deterrence is the dominant principle for this class of offence and a two‑month custodial sentence after trial is appropriate; no aggravation for proximity to a police station was justified, so the original 10‑week term is replaced by 2 months' imprisonment.
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC14/2012

Convictions under s.17B(1) and s.17B(2) could not stand: s.17B(1) requires a purpose to prevent the transaction of the gathering's business in a substantial practical sense (not a momentary interruption), and s.17B(2) requires that disorderly conduct be intended or objectively likely to provoke a breach of the peace by others; the evidence did not establish those elements (staff and persons present acted with restraint and there was no real likelihood others would resort to violence), therefore the appellants' convictions were quashed and appeals allowed.
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC12/2012

s.17B(1) requires a purpose to prevent the transaction of the gathering's business meaning a practical or substantial prevention or substantial impairment, not a momentary interruption; s.17B(2) requires that the disorderly behaviour be intended to provoke or objectively likely to cause others to commit a breach of the peace (violence or threatened violence by others). On the facts the prosecution failed to prove the requisite purpose under s.17B(1) or the requisite likelihood/intent under s.17B(2); accordingly convictions could not be sustained though appellants' actions were disorderly and…
18 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. WONG HIN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HIN WAI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC13/2012

Convictions under s.17B(1) and s.17B(2) were unsustainable: s.17B(1) requires purpose to prevent or substantially impair the transaction of the gathering's business which was not proven (only brief interruption occurred); s.17B(2) requires that disorderly conduct was intended to provoke or was likely to cause a breach of the peace by others — there was no evidential basis that others present (security, staff, public) were likely to be provoked to unlawful violence given their restraint and training — accordingly both statutory elements failed and appeals allowed.