Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guilty plea withdrawal

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2024

香港特別行政區訴智街實業有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 656
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA155/2024

The appellant's guilty pleas were clear, voluntary and sufficient to sustain conviction; incomplete or defective submissions do not excuse the statutory duty to file annual returns on time nor negate criminal liability; the magistrate's sentencing approach (HK$2,000 base plus HK$30 per day) was within established and reasonable sentencing practice and not manifestly excessive; payments to the Companies Registry are distinct regulatory fees and do not offset court-ordered fines. Consequently both conviction and sentence are upheld.
6 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN YIP FAI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1394
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC154/2021

The judge correctly found the plea was a deliberate and informed decision, not the product of a fundamental mistake; messages containing codewords were served well before the plea and, on chronology and context, supported the finding that 'turtle' was used as a drug code; the applicant failed to discharge the burden to show an overriding factor making the conviction unsafe, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
28 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TZE HONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 900
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC261/2018

Appellant's pleas to Counts 1 and 2 were unequivocal and could justify directing the jury, but the convictions were unsafe because the trial judge relied on prosecuting counsel's opening and a Summary of Facts derived from depositions (material not properly adduced or admitted) when convicting and sentencing; that reliance tainted the convictions and sentence for Counts 1 and 2 and required quashing and retrial; pleas to Counts 3–7 were properly entered and convictions on those counts were upheld.
25 Aug 2000

HKSAR v. CHI WING KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHI WING KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA683/2000

The conviction appeal was dismissed because the guilty pleas were unequivocal, made with legal representation and free of duress or misunderstanding; however, leave to appeal out of time against sentence was granted and the six months' imprisonment was set aside and replaced by an 18-month probation order because the appellant's personal circumstances and professional reports justified rehabilitation rather than custody.
30 Mar 1983

CHAU MING-CHEONG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAU MING-CHEONG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1011/1982

Where agreed facts disclose a prolonged course of violent ill-treatment of a child known to the parent, the parent's persistent passive failure to take reasonable steps to protect the child manifests an objective reckless disregard of the child’s health and welfare amounting to manslaughter; therefore the plea was properly accepted and the application to withdraw it is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 智街實業有限公司

HKSAR v. CHAN YIP FAI

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TZE HONG

HKSAR v. CHI WING KIN

CHAU MING-CHEONG v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴智街實業有限公司