Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Loitering

  • 18 Apr 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳俊迪

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1064
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA177/2022

    On re‑examination the appellate court accepted that purposive searching in shared parts can amount to loitering under s.160(3) but concluded the trial judge over‑emphasised the complainant's subjective fear and did not sufficiently apply the objective standard; on the whole of the evidence the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would have feared for safety, therefore the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.

  • 16 Feb 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 王永明

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 446
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA138/2020

    The magistrate misapplied sentencing methodology by adopting the appellant's prior sentence as the starting point without proper analysis and without quantifying uplifts for habitual offending; the High Court allowed the appeal in part, emphasised the need to set a starting point then adjust for factors (including rehabilitation needs), and reduced the cumulative sentence accordingly.

  • 19 Jun 2018

    香港特別行政區 訴 陸志榮

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 1232
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA147/2017

    The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and factual inferences because they were supported by objective evidence (notably CCTV) and not perverse; the judge lawfully managed evidence and questioning of an unrepresented accused; on the objective standard the appellant's conduct in the building amounted to loitering that reasonably caused fear, therefore conviction stands.

  • 12 Mar 2018

    香港特別行政區 訴 黃俊欽

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 546
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA494/2017

    The conviction was upheld because the proven facts—sustained, coordinated following by two vehicles for an extended period, CCTV evidence of on-foot surveillance at times, contemporaneous actions and exchanges between the two cars—established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were loitering in a public place; the complainant subjectively feared for personal and campaign team safety and that fear was objectively reasonable; and the appellant participated in a joint enterprise to follow and monitor the complainant, satisfying the elements of s.160(3) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap.200).

  • 15 Apr 2011

    HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA970/2010

    The court found the one year sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, noting lack of triad or violence, doubtful reliance on hearsay about extortion, absence of identified background justifying a deterrent sentence and the appellant's time served; the sentence was reduced to effect the appellant's immediate release.

  • 24 Jul 2008

    HKSAR v. SHEK CHU KONG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SHEK CHU KONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA193/2008

    The appellate court upheld the magistrate's factual findings that the appellant entered a building through a locked gate, was observed standing and looking at letterboxes, gave implausible explanations and attempted to leave only when accosted; those facts supported an inference of loitering and requisite mens rea and would reasonably cause concern to PW1, therefore the conviction under s.160(3) was safe and was affirmed.

  • 8 Jan 2007

    HKSAR V. PEARCE, MATT JAMES

    Citation
    HKSAR V. PEARCE, MATT JAMES
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA635/2006

    The application for a certificate was dismissed because the claimed points were not arguable as questions of law of great and general public importance: the offences' ingredients are statutory and long established and the asserted constitutional challenge did not reach a tenable or arguable position given the requisite balance between public order and the right to demonstrate.

  • 28 Apr 2006

    HKSAR v. TONG YIU WAH

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TONG YIU WAH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA811/2005

    Section 20(1) must be read with section 94A CPO so that 'without reasonable cause' is an exception/negative averment and the defendant bears the persuasive/legal burden on balance of probabilities to prove reasonable cause; that allocation does not breach article 11(1) HKBOR because it is justified, necessary and proportionate in the airport context; magistrate's factual findings that appellant was touting were supported by evidence, so conviction stands though sentence was adjusted to reflect the principal offence of touting.

  • 19 Mar 2004

    HKSAR v. CHAN SUI KI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN SUI KI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1246/2003

    The magistrate correctly treated the brief facts as not forming part of the evidence, reasonably accepted PW1's explanation that the discrepancy with his witness statement was a genuine oversight, and correctly found PW2's conduct in following and allowing the suspect to be intercepted before searching for the tourist to be proper; those findings were entitled to deference and supported affirming the conviction.