Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial conduct and fairness

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2025

香港特別行政區訴陳卓蕎

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA472/2024

The appellate court, on a re-trial standard, accepted the prosecution eyewitness evidence and the medical records showing no documented amnesia or drug-induced incapacity and found the appellant's multiple, inconsistent explanations and corroborating phone and messaging records made her account inherently unreliable; therefore the evidence established theft beyond reasonable doubt and conviction was affirmed; however sentencing was excessive in context and substituted with a proportional fine of HKD 3,000.
30 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴 CARITAS – HONG KONG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3720
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA263/2021

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge properly accepted expert evidence that the grinder without an auxiliary handle posed a foreseeable rebound risk and was unsafe for the work; the employer failed, within what was reasonably practicable, to provide safe equipment or adequate training and supervision; and the judge's active questioning did not render the trial unfair, so the factual findings and conviction are safe.
24 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. S. SPACE DESIGN (HK) CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. S. SPACE DESIGN (HK) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA615/1997

Section 15(1) on its plain terms creates an offence only where the employer terminates employment under Sections 6 or 7; there was no evidence the appellant terminated pursuant to s6 or s7; the magistrate erred in importing a constructive s6/s7 termination from a Labour Tribunal compensation award and in misapplying the mischief rule; conviction therefore unsafe and quashed.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 陳卓蕎

香港特別行政區 訴 CARITAS – HONG KONG

HKSAR v. S. SPACE DESIGN (HK) CO LTD

香港特別行政區訴陳卓蕎

香港特別行政區訴 CARITAS – HONG KONG