Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonesty and mens rea

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. SHIN JOYCE and Another

Citation

HKSAR v. SHIN JOYCE and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA310/1997

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate, by repeated and substantive interventions that effectively assumed prosecutorial functions and obstructed defence counsel, created a justifiable impression of having entered the arena; an informed bystander could not be satisfied the Appellants had a fair trial, rendering the convictions unsafe; consequently convictions and sentences were quashed and retrial was not ordered.
17 Nov 1995

R. v. YEUNG CHONG YU

Citation

R. v. YEUNG CHONG YU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC592/1994

The Court held there was ample evidence that the applicant, as the person in control of Wilson Company, dishonestly obtained property by deception by inducing victims to accept post-dated cheques which were not going to be met; the conviction was therefore upheld and leave to appeal refused.
7 Feb 1994

R. v. CHEUNG WAI WAN

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG WAI WAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA979/1993

The conviction was upheld because the representation that the presenter was entitled to claim on the ticket was false where the presenter was neither owner nor authorised, that false representation induced the Club to pay when cheque and cash were handed over, the Crown need not prove loss to the payor under s17, and the computer print-outs were admissible under s22A given adequate security against unauthorised interference.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SHIN JOYCE and Another

R. v. YEUNG CHONG YU

R. v. CHEUNG WAI WAN