Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Magistrates ordinance s.113

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2022

HKSAR v. YEOH, POH LEAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1962
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA431/2021

The Court of First Instance, conducting a rehearing, relied on the CCTV footage and assessments of surrounding circumstances, found the appellant's explanation credible and that the suspicious actions were insufficient to establish an irresistible inference of intent to steal or dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and fine.
16 Dec 2020

HKSAR v. CHING LEE ENGINEERING LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 40
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC16/2020

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial magistrate's findings that defective grout curtain/cofferdam and failures in monitoring led to excessive water ingress and a piping effect causing the sinkhole were supported by the evidence and upheld on rehearing; the proposed question of law was academic in these fact-specific circumstances and no substantial and grave injustice or reversible error was demonstrated, including as to costs.
19 Oct 2015

HKSAR v. MAULE, OLIVER NIGEL ARTHUR

Citation

HKSAR v. MAULE, OLIVER NIGEL ARTHUR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA669/2013

The appellant's plea was voluntary, unequivocal and admitted the facts; no fundamental mistake or nullifying circumstance under section 113 was demonstrated; the related magistrates' decision did not undermine the conviction; the appellant's absence was treated as abandonment; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
13 Dec 2010

ANTONIUS MARIUS JACOBUS VAN HUIJSTEE v. HKSAR

Citation

ANTONIUS MARIUS JACOBUS VAN HUIJSTEE v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC66/2010

Leave to appeal was granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2) because there are at least two reasonably arguable bases for appeal: the judge's speculative finding about a transfer of banknotes without that being put to the colleague in cross-examination, and an approach that appears to have reversed the burden of proof, each potentially amounting to substantial and grave injustice.
7 Jan 2009

HKSAR v. HO WAN TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. HO WAN TAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA109/2008

Although a magistrate must consider accidental touch as an alternative if supported by the evidence, here the magistrate had considered it and the uncontradicted witness evidence of deliberate cupping conduct eliminated any reasonable possibility of an accidental touch; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal dismissed.
18 Sept 2007

HKSAR v. CARMEN C. RIVERA

Citation

HKSAR v. CARMEN C. RIVERA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1226/2006

Appellate court concluded there was a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction because of material contradictions and omissions in the key prosecution witness's statements and implausibilities in the account; given those defects and the appellant's good character the conviction could not stand and was quashed.
11 Mar 2005

CHOU SHIH BIN v. HKSAR

Citation

CHOU SHIH BIN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC11/2004

Conviction was quashed because, discounting the sergeant's alleged admission, the evidence was insufficient to prove the requisite guilty knowledge and the appellant in any event discharged any evidential burden; the verdict was unsafe and must be set aside.
23 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN YING KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YING KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA611/1999

The plea to the second charge was void because the appellant was not aware that unlawful landing was an essential element; accordingly the conviction and sentence on that charge were quashed and, under s.41 of the Immigration Ordinance, a substituted conviction for breach of condition of stay was entered with a three-month sentence, partly concurrent and partly consecutive, resulting in immediate release given time already served.
23 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. LAW KIN PING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW KIN PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA839/1999

The appellant's plea to the charge of remaining in Hong Kong after unlawful landing was a nullity because he did not understand unlawful landing was an essential element and documentary evidence (Macau passport and ID) established he entered legally and merely overstayed; therefore the conviction on that charge was quashed and, exercising jurisdiction under s.113, the court substituted a conviction for breach of condition of stay under s.41 and adjusted sentences, producing a total effective sentence of nine months' imprisonment.
20 Mar 1996

THE QUEEN v. WONG HOI MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG HOI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1099/1995

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the factual circumstances differed from those he admitted at the Magistrate's Court and failed to establish humanitarian or exceptional mitigation; accordingly the Magistrate's concurrent sentences of 15 months on each count were proper and were affirmed.