Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Intoxication

  • 28 Oct 2021

    HKSAR v. WONG HING KWOK

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1630
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC9/2020

    Leave to appeal was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds: newly instructed counsel had adequate continuity and conducted competent defence so lack of preparation did not deny a fair trial; the judge's interventions and directions did not amount to apparent bias or improperly entering the arena when considered in context; the summing-up was not unfair read as a whole; and the sentence (5 years and 4 months) was not manifestly excessive given aggravating features (taking advantage of an intoxicated woman and absence of a condom) and appropriate allowance for mitigation.

  • 2 Jun 2021

    HKSAR v. SIU WAI CHEONG

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 804
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC347/2019

    There was no error of law or miscarriage of justice: diminished responsibility had been abandoned and mentioning it caused no prejudice; there was no evidential foundation that the applicant was suffering a drug or alcohol induced psychotic episode such that it could be treated as a special characteristic for provocation, and the judge properly directed the jury on intoxication and the live issues; accordingly leave to appeal and the appeal were refused.

  • 7 May 2019

    香港特別行政區 訴 許建輝

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 1095
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA607/2018

    The judge’s acceptance of CCTV and witness evidence that the appellant remained conscious and intended to appropriate the milk powder was supported by evidence; the absence of a police-arranged blood test did not amount to legal error or shift the prosecution’s burden; therefore prosecution proved the elements of theft beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction must stand.

  • 18 Sept 2018

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳永豪

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 2028
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA508/2017

    The judge properly found the victim's evidence credible, rejected the appellant's contention that intoxication or lack of memory negated intent, concluded the appellant's sequence of acts in the taxi constituted indecent conduct and that he intended those acts; the appellate court found those factual findings were supported by evidence and not vitiated by legal error and therefore affirmed the conviction.

  • 6 Jan 2015

    HKSAR v. MA WEI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MA WEI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA341/2014

    The magistrate's assessment of the prosecution witnesses was plainly wrong because of material contradictions and reliability defects (contradictory account of another man, unexplained timeline, intoxication misstatements, implausible physical account); those defects undermined the prosecution case so the conviction could not stand; conviction quashed and sentence set aside with no retrial ordered.

  • 11 Nov 2014

    HKSAR v. GREGORY JAMIE MCKAY

    Citation
    HKSAR v. GREGORY JAMIE MCKAY
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA645/2014

    The sentencing exercise by the Magistrate was not shown to be wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive given the need for deterrence and protection of a vulnerable sex worker; however, because the appellant had served most of the imposed sentence and some mitigating conduct (waiting for police) was present, the Court varied the sentence to permit the appellant's immediate release.

  • 31 Oct 2014

    HKSAR v. ADAM WILLIAM TOWNSEND

    Citation
    HKSAR v. ADAM WILLIAM TOWNSEND
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA141/2014

    The Appeal is dismissed: the Magistrate's starting point of four months reduced to three months for the guilty plea was appropriate; the act was a serious intimate indecent assault involving penetration and pulling down underwear, custodial sentence was required, and voluntary intoxication does not excuse the conduct nor render the sentence excessive.

  • 29 Sept 2014

    HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA374/2014

    The appellant intentionally possessed a large meat cleaver and, based on the nature of the implement, his conduct entering the police station, steady gait, failure to heed repeated warnings, reaction only after firearms were drawn, medical observation and recorded interview, the only reasonable inference beyond reasonable doubt is that he had the intent to use the chopper for an unlawful purpose (threatening or harming police); conviction under s17 is therefore upheld.

  • 6 Nov 2012

    HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC295/2011

    On the facts and evidence, including contemporaneous signs of intoxication and the implausibility of a genuine robbery at the appellant's home carpark, the Court found reasonable doubt as to the requisite specific intent for robbery and substituted a conviction for common assault with an appropriate sentence.

  • 18 Jun 2010

    HKSAR v. RAI RAJU KUMAR

    Citation
    HKSAR v. RAI RAJU KUMAR
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC74/2009

    The Court held the summing-up was fair, balanced and contained the appropriate directions about reliability, intoxication, inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration and recklessness; on that basis the jury could properly convict and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed as the conviction was not unsafe.