Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplicitous charge

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. SALIM, MAJED AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SALIM, MAJED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/2013

Convictions quashed because (1) the judge based convictions on accessorial liability and on defendants' alleged lending of accounts and on uncharged withdrawal conduct without having given the parties notice and an opportunity to meet that unpleaded basis of criminal liability, which is impermissible; (2) the counts as drafted were duplicitous (each aggregate amount represented multiple identifiable deposits by different victims over time) and could not be saved by the one‑transaction/general deficiency/continuous offence exceptions; and (3) parts of convictions based on uncharged withdrawals…
27 Jul 2001

HKSAR v. SUEN WOON CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. SUEN WOON CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA516/2001

The Court held that the magistrate's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and accompanied by adequate reasons, that rejection of the appellant's mistake/forgetfulness defences was justified, that any arguable duplicity caused no prejudice and was waived by lack of objection, and therefore the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and should be upheld.
16 Jan 1997

R. v. CHUNG WAH KEE

Citation

R. v. CHUNG WAH KEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC451/1996

Because the trial judge provided detailed and persuasive reasons accepting the complainant's identification and the appellant abandoned the primary statutory challenge, the Court concluded the convictions were not unsafe and dismissed the application to appeal.
28 Jun 1993

THE QUEEN v. SO KWOK LEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SO KWOK LEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA198/1993

Oral admissions at scene were voluntary and admissible despite exclusion of a later post‑recorded caution statement; knowledge of the precise nature of the goods was unnecessary for smuggling liability where defendant knew goods were being illicitly transported; mis‑pleading under the Regulations rather than the Ordinance was fatal for those counts and convictions on those counts were quashed; remaining convictions were upheld because discrepancies were immaterial and magistrate correctly assessed witnesses and applied s.27 principles to trivial variances.
18 Jul 1991

THE QUEEN v. TSOI KWOK LEUNG PETER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSOI KWOK LEUNG PETER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA441/1991

The appeal was allowed because the appellate court found the magistrate gave undue weight to unreliable aspects of prosecution evidence and insufficient weight to the appellant's evidence that monies may have been paid to Clifford Yeung & Co.; the movement of funds could not be safely dismissed and produced a lurking doubt as to the safety of the convictions, warranting quashing of the convictions.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SALIM, MAJED AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. SUEN WOON CHUN

R. v. CHUNG WAH KEE

THE QUEEN v. SO KWOK LEUNG AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. TSOI KWOK LEUNG PETER