Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Inchoate offences

  • 17 Oct 2025

    HKSAR v. TANG KA MAN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 935
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC9/2025

    Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge correctly applied legal principles: identification was properly found on the cumulative evidence with appropriate caution, the judge lawfully inferred a conspiracy from conduct and planning, she addressed and found the requisite specific intent for conspiracy to wound (not conflating foresight with intent), and the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable.

  • 1 Sept 2020

    HKSAR v. LIU YAU FOOK

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 745
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC186/2019

    The Court held that the objective circumstances (night loading of black-wrapped pallets onto speedboats very close to the border, observed operation of the crane by the applicant, the lack of manifest) were acts more than merely preparatory and permitted only the irresistible inference that the applicant intended to export the goods; the judge was entitled to reject the applicant’s cautioned statement and to refuse leave to appeal.

  • 27 Nov 2015

    HKSAR v. JARIABKA JURAJ

    Citation
    HKSAR v. JARIABKA JURAJ
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC321/2014

    Leave to appeal was granted on two principal grounds: (1) it is reasonably arguable that no offence capable of being incited was established because the relevant property (future bank deposits) did not exist at the time and the conduct may have been merely preparatory; (2) it is reasonably arguable that the prosecution did not prove that the monies to be deposited would be proceeds of an indictable offence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it is reasonably arguable sentencing for an inchoate offence requires assessment of proven conduct and potential harm and that the judg…

  • 2 Mar 2004

    HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAM LUN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAM LUN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC15/2003

    The court held that the undercover officers did no more than present an opportunity to offend (no entrapment), the recordings and transcripts were admissible and there was no evidence of improper editing, the trial judge permissibly rejected the applicant's claim he believed the officers were joking and found beyond reasonable doubt that he agreed to launder proceeds believed to be from smuggling, and the sentence was within permissible range given the applicant's role and the scheme's sophistication and inter-jurisdictional nature; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and conviction and s…

  • 25 Jun 1980

    PO KOON TAI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    PO KOON TAI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC836/1979

    The common law recognises conspiracy to agree to procure the commission of a substantive statutory offence where the agreement and acts of the conspirators were directed to causing that offence; in this case the appellants agreed and arranged the means by which unlawful landings under s.38(1)(a) were effected, s.38(2) did not excuse a covert landing, the conspiracy charged is an offence known to law, and the convictions and four‑year sentences were therefore upheld.