Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence and credibility assessment

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴周智宏

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3039
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA429/2021

Although the trial judge's factual findings supported that the appellant possessed items capable of illegal use and likely intended to engage in obstructive or violent conduct, the binding authority in HKSAR v Chan Chun Kit requires proof of the particular unlawful purpose charged (here, unlawful entry) and the prosecution failed to prove that specific intent; therefore the conviction under the chosen offence was legally unsustainable and must be quashed.
1 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. THAPA PREMKALA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2021

The Deputy Magistrate accepted the unchallenged evidence of the two police witnesses, rejected the 1st defendant's account as inherently inconsistent, and on the only irresistible inference found that the appellant acted as a lookout and was guilty of theft; there was no legal or factual error warranting appellate interference, and the appeal must be dismissed.
22 Mar 2019

曾錦蘭對林芳妃

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 23
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD215/2019

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the tenant (or persons associated with the tenant) removed the kitchen and stove and altered the unit and that the unit had been subdivided for other occupants, constituting a breach of the implied covenant in s117(3)(g). The tribunal accepted the owner's evidence (photos, third‑party access, WhatsApp context) and rejected respondent's denials. The non-standard review application to stay or overturn the 22 Feb 2019 possession judgment was dismissed. However, because the posting of Form 22 did not fully comply with r7A, the tribunal exerc…
23 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. RAJAPAKSHA, GANGA SHIRANI

Citation

HKSAR v. RAJAPAKSHA, GANGA SHIRANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA142/2014

The magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable on the evidence; prosecution proved intent beyond reasonable doubt because the appellant was observed taking goods and the goods were recovered from her bag; the expert only suggested automatism was possible and defence failed to prove absence of intent; conviction is therefore safe; however the original six month sentence was disproportionate in context and reduced to three months imprisonment.
26 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA494/2004

Magistrate correctly rejected the 1st appellant's reliance on the common law defence because mere lending a name, absence of inquiry and implicit trust in spouse did not constitute a good and sufficient reason and the appellant derived benefit from the business; conviction of the 1st appellant is upheld. Regarding the 2nd appellant, the magistrate erred in distinguishing transactions solely by production of copies at trial; the 2nd appellant's consistent evidence that he inspected and believed the certificates genuine applied to all transactions and thus his convictions (as entered by the mag…

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 周智宏

HKSAR v. THAPA PREMKALA

曾錦蘭 對 林芳妃

HKSAR v. RAJAPAKSHA, GANGA SHIRANI

HKSAR v. LAM MEI LING AND ANOTHER

香港特別行政區訴周智宏

曾錦蘭對林芳妃