Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common design

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2014

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA234/2012

The appellant's conviction was upheld because he was a co-principal whose own acts were sufficient to ground conviction; the absence of evidence supporting a common design as to other accused does not negate liability where the accused's own conduct establishes the offence; therefore no different basis of conviction arose and the application for certification is misconceived.
25 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. WONG HOK HANG AND 2 OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HOK HANG AND 2 OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC255/2004

The court upheld the convictions because the coordinated presence, conduct and equipment of the defendants (masks and pepper spray), together with surveillance evidence and the role of D3 and D4, furnished a single sensible inference of a common design to commit robbery; admissions by D1 reinforced this finding for D1 and supported inference against D2; D3 and D4 were properly inferred to be co-conspirators by design and conduct.
20 Jan 1993

R. v. LEE KWOK ON

Citation

R. v. LEE KWOK ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC483/1991

Conviction quashed because the trial judge failed to give the jury essential directions about accomplice evidence and the applicant's absence when the instruction to commit the robbery was given, and the summing‑up wrongly invited an inference of participation from equivocal evidence, rendering the verdict unsafe.
7 Mar 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG YAU TOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG YAU TOR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC185/1988

The Court held the trial judge's directions and application of law were adequate, the forensic fibre and blood-group evidence legitimately linked the applicants to the male deceased and provided a coherent narrative that could only reasonably be explained by their participation in the murders; no-case submission was correctly rejected and the convictions were not unsafe.
23 Sept 1988

THE QUEEN v. LO MING-YIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LO MING-YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA749/1988

The Magistrate properly evaluated credibility, found the victim honest and totally restrained against his will, found the restraint unlawful and that the accused acted in common design; minor inconsistencies in police evidence did not undermine the prosecution's essential case; the alleged remark did not amount to bias and did not invalidate the conviction, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
22 Apr 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG LEE PING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG LEE PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC54/1988

Although the trial judge's language contained ambiguous references to recklessness, he had found specific intent and, given the uncontested facts (weapon brought and used, applicant led, encouraged and directed attackers), any properly directed jury would have convicted; therefore the proviso applies and the application for leave to appeal is refused.
18 Jun 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC39/1985

The conviction was upheld because the evidence supported the finding that the shooting was intentional or within the common design and the trial judge correctly and sufficiently directed the jury on accident and common design; the change of plea did not render the trial unfair.
10 Aug 1984

THE QUEEN v. YAU SAU-KAM

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YAU SAU-KAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC948/1983

Applying the Privy Council guidance, the mens rea for murder under common design is subjective and the jury must be satisfied the accused actually contemplated the risk of death or serious injury; on the evidence in this case the appellant either contemplated that risk or conceded the ground challenging the direction was not arguable, and therefore the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
21 Jun 1984

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI-TAK AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI-TAK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC188/1984

The trial judge properly accepted the corroborated eyewitness evidence, legitimately inferred a common design from the rapid sequence of acts (newspaper passed, lit and thrown onto oil near a bus) and there was no misdirection or insufficiency of reasons warranting appellate interference; accordingly leave to appeal and the convictions were refused/affirmed.
9 Nov 1983

THE QUEEN v. LAM YEUNG CHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM YEUNG CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC378/1983

The Court held the judge did not misdirect in overruling the no case submission because there was a sufficient matrix of circumstantial evidence before the jury from which a reasonable jury could infer the appellant must have foreseen that his confederates were armed and that some physical harm was a possible consequence of the joint enterprise; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.