Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good character

Legal area

Court

11 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHAN MO SAN MICHAEL

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 68
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA98/2023

On rehearing the court found material errors and unfairness in the magistrate's treatment of photographic and CCTV evidence, failure to require or consider contemporaneous phone records and medical documentation adequately, and material inconsistencies in prosecution witness evidence and motive that undermined the safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
4 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. THAPA PREMKALA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2021

Because there was a substantial risk that a substantial part or all of the 12‑month sentence would be served before the appeal could be heard and because the appeal had at least a reasonable prospect of success given the potential irregularity concerning treatment of failure to testify and good character, the court granted bail pending appeal and ordered a transcript of the magistrate's verdict.
2 Dec 2011

HKSAR v. PETER MARTIN CHELLONE

Citation

HKSAR v. PETER MARTIN CHELLONE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA340/2011

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate carefully evaluated evidence, rightly relied on the credible police witness account and did not misapply legal principles; the sentence was reduced because, on comparison with past cases and absent evidence of increased prevalence of such offences on public transport, nine weeks was manifestly excessive and was reduced to five weeks.
17 Nov 2009

HKSAR v. MOK YUEN CHUEN, PHOEBE

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK YUEN CHUEN, PHOEBE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA467/2009

The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate provided adequate reasons overall, properly considered the Appellant's good character, did not place undue weight on demeanour, and the later, more detailed Statement of Findings only elaborated the original oral reasons without introducing inconsistency or unfairness; therefore the conviction for theft was safe and must be upheld.
21 Nov 2008

HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIN WILLIAM

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM MAN KIN WILLIAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC388/2007

The Full Court dismissed the application because the trial judge gave comprehensive, orthodox directions on burden and standard of proof, the weight to be attached to the defendant's cautioned interview, the use and relevance of prior incidents as contextual evidence for credibility (not propensity), the admissibility/use of an early contemporaneous statement to rebut an attack of recent invention, and on distress and demeanour; there was no material misdirection and the conviction was safe.
4 Feb 2008

HKSAR v. LIN SIU LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LIN SIU LUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC10/2006

D1 and D2 appeals succeeded because the trial judge erred in exercising discretion on severance (joinder of prejudicial counts and co-defendants), and in giving materially improper directions (notably a written handout on intention and unsatisfactory treatment of defence and good character) such that convictions were unsafe; by contrast D9 and D10 convictions were upheld because the evidence and directions as to causation and joint enterprise were sufficient and any omissions were not material to manslaughter verdicts.
11 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. FUNG YU HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG YU HANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA306/2006

Given the accepted evidence that the appellant brought the store's plastic bag into the store, placed items into it on multiple occasions, was stopped and admitted taking items, and that his account of mistake was implausible, the magistrate properly inferred dishonest intent and convicted; possession of money and academic achievements did not rebut the inference and the appellate court will not disturb these factual findings.
28 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. YAN KAI YIP

Citation

HKSAR v. YAN KAI YIP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA95/2005

The magistrate's acceptance of PW3's account on 19 June was a permissible credibility finding supported by the record; the statement of findings contained only minor drafting shortcomings that did not undermine the proper allocation of burden or the essential findings required for conviction, therefore conviction and sentence were upheld.
31 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. POON WAI KIN REMUS

Citation

HKSAR v. POON WAI KIN REMUS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1205/2004

The magistrate properly excluded induced admissions but, on the unchallenged observations and contemporaneous facts (wearing the stolen article, wrapping in bag, conduct in shop) and the magistrate's adverse credibility finding, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant was aware and intended to steal; the prosecutor's failure to disclose good character was regrettable but did not render the trial unfair; appeal dismissed.
11 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. LAU CHI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC617/2002

By majority the Court held that although some passages of the summing-up could have been more felicitously expressed, the judge's directions as a whole adequately explained the law on consent, the elements of the offences and the relevance of the applicant's good character and response to caution; on that basis the majority found no material unfairness and dismissed the appeal (leave granted), while a dissenting judge found the directions on the evidential status of the mixed statement and the suggestion that consent was not really in issue amounted to material error rendering the convictions…