Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure of prior convictions

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. CHENG YIM FUNG, FLORA

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC35/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the asserted grounds were not reasonably arguable: independent and overwhelming evidence supported the conviction; nondisclosure of remote stale convictions did not render the verdict unsafe; alleged reliance on contract expiry or other facts was unnecessary to uphold the Magistrate's findings; and the complaint of flagrant incompetence did not show deprivation of a fair trial.
24 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC527/2001

The summing‑up was fair and balanced; the circumstantial and forensic evidence (fibres, DNA, pathologist's findings), together with the applicant's flight and demonstrably false alibi, sufficed to support the jury's guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt; there was no irregularity meriting leave to appeal and no basis to order post‑trial production of CCTV that was available at the time of trial; accordingly leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. LAW CHUNG KI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW CHUNG KI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/2002

The trial judge's directions on possession, knowledge and trafficking were adequate; disclosure of prior convictions was lawful because both defendants gave evidence against each other; omissions in standard jury formulae and fuller Walton‑type explanation were not material on these facts; convictions of both applicants are upheld; sentencing disparity for Law was unjustified and his sentences on the two counts should run concurrently, reducing his total term to 22 years.
24 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. LAU SIU FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU SIU FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA349/2003

The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in refusing adjournments; late disclosure did not produce demonstrable prejudice; the magistrate's credibility findings as to PW1 were reasonably open on the evidence; and the appellant's driving constituted a course of conduct meeting the statutory test for dangerous driving under s37(4) RTO, therefore the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
20 Nov 1986

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SAN-WAH

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SAN-WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA939/1986

The magistrate properly exercised his discretion to continue the trial despite the accidental suggestion of a prior conviction because no substantial prejudice resulted (it was later shown there was no conviction or suspended sentence), the relationship evidence was narrative and not relied upon, and the reference to the girlfriend's telephone call produced no substantive prejudicial matter; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
1 Jul 1983

THE QUEEN v. CHENG TAK-KWONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHENG TAK-KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC513/1983

Where a DATC order would only take effect after completion of an existing prison sentence so that it creates an impermissible deferral of the treatment period, the order is wrong in principle; the Court of Appeal will allow the appeal, quash the DATC order and substitute a term of imprisonment calculated to result in the defendant's discharge upon completion of the sentence already being served.
6 Dec 1982

YAU KOON-YAU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YAU KOON-YAU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1048/1982

Exposure of a magistrate to an accused's previous record during bail proceedings does not automatically vitiate a subsequent trial; the trial may proceed so long as the magistrate can and does act without bias, and the same standard applies to magistrates as to District Judges and higher courts; in this case the magistrate demonstrated no improper influence and the convictions were warranted by the evidence.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHENG YIM FUNG, FLORA

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI

HKSAR v. LAW CHUNG KI AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LAU SIU FAI

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SAN-WAH

THE QUEEN v. CHENG TAK-KWONG

YAU KOON-YAU v. THE QUEEN