Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Claim of right defence

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2009

CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2008

Appeals dismissed: the Court held on the evidence the appellants were not deprived of a fair trial. Trial counsel's advice not to give evidence was a reasonable exercise of judgment in the face of inadequate instructions and the implausibility of the claim of right; any error did not amount to negligence nor would it have altered the inevitable guilty outcome. The 2nd appellant had separate representation and no meritorious complaint.
23 Jun 2008

HKSAR v. CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2007

The Court held the applications for leave to appeal by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were without merit and dismissed them: the trial was fair, counsel's conduct did not amount to defective representation prejudicing the trial, the claim of right defence was unsupported by evidence (no nexus proving earlier loan to RNA), and the prosecution proved the conspiracy by documentary, transactional and circumstantial evidence; errors or minor transcription slips in the Reasons for Verdict were immaterial to safety of convictions; the 4th defendant's appeal was conceded and allowed and the 5th was…
27 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. LEE CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA786/2007

The magistrate’s acceptance of prosecution evidence (photographs, witness testimony and correspondence) provided sufficient basis to conclude the appellant did not honestly believe he had a legal right to dispose of the goods; conviction was therefore upheld; the original 8‑month immediate sentence was excessive and was suspended for two years pursuant to section 109B Cap. 221.
26 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. CHUNG YEE FONG, HELEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG YEE FONG, HELEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC33/2004

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the trial judge’s factual findings that the applicant acted both subjectively and objectively dishonestly in fabricating and using the cancellation agreement to remove a registered blot on title and thereby induce KLY to pay were supported by the evidence; the bona fide claim of right defence was negatived by the judge, the operative mind(s) of KLY were shown to have been deceived (notably Raymond Chu and Paul Ho), and the failure to call one partner (Kao) did not undermine the prosecution case; accordingly the conviction stands…
14 Dec 1995

R. v. LAM CHIU VA

Citation

R. v. LAM CHIU VA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1007/1995

The court held that s.26(4) of the Theft Ordinance expressly treats property obtained by blackmail as stolen; accordingly the theft charges were sustainable despite the appellant's asserted belief in a claim of right, and the evidence supported conviction for blackmail. The convictions and an aggregate sentence of 8 months were therefore affirmed.
19 Jun 1986

THE QUEEN v. TSANG MING-HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG MING-HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC118/1986

Because the judge accepted the appellant's honest belief that he had a lawful claim of right, that belief negated the dishonest appropriation element of robbery and constituted a valid defence to robbery; however the facts supported conviction for the lesser offence of common assault, so the court quashed the robbery conviction and substituted a conviction for common assault and imposed an appropriate custodial sentence; a retrial on a different offence not capable of conviction on the original indictment was not permissible under s83E(2).
16 Dec 1972

LEE CHIU-SO v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE CHIU-SO v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC706/1972

The court held the conviction for blackmail was properly supported by the magistrate's acceptance of the complainant's evidence and corroboration, and rejected the appellants' claim of honest belief in a right to demand payment; however, the theft convictions of the first and second appellants were quashed because the $400 had been handed over as part of a police trap and there was voluntary parting with the money; the original 18-month sentences were excessive on these facts and were set aside and replaced with 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. CHAN FAT CHU RAYMOND AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEE CHING

HKSAR v. CHUNG YEE FONG, HELEN

R. v. LAM CHIU VA

THE QUEEN v. TSANG MING-HUNG

LEE CHIU-SO v. THE QUEEN