Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against sentence for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office arising from prison telephone and cigarette contraband.
On full review of the evidence the court found appellants knowingly acted without authority, used false identities and a document purporting to be police‑signed to obtain CCTV not authorised by their superiors and unrelated to lawful 'intelligence gathering'; their conduct was deliberate, amounted to serious misconduct in public office and was proven beyond reasonable doubt, so the convictions and sentences were upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s challenge to a misconduct in public office conviction, holding the proven disclosure and retainer did not meet the criminal seriousness threshold.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal conviction and sentence for misconduct in public office, finding the proposed grounds reasonably arguable.
The Court of Appeal granted bail pending appeal after finding the conviction and sentence grounds reasonably arguable and the time ground made out.
Application for a permanent stay of proceedings was refused. The court held the alleged monitoring, disclosure concerns and arrest incident did not make a fair trial impossible.
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge reasonably found on the evidence—including the applicant's own interview admissions and documentary proof of declaration obligations—that the appellant knowingly and deliberately concealed material conflicts of interest with the intent to benefit himself, his spouse or an associate; the exculpatory parts of the interviews were not credible, there was no reasonable excuse, good character did not undermine the finding of mens rea, and the conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant criminal sanction.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that private prosecution is compatible with Basic Law art. 63, applied the prima facie test for private summonses, and dismissed the appeal.
Although the right to silence is fundamental, the court will refuse costs where a defendant’s silence at investigation deprived the prosecution of explanations that later formed the basis of acquittal; here the court found objective documentary and institutional evidence (records, invoices, business‑unit awareness and acquiescence) already disclosed issues such that the defendants’ silence did not mislead the prosecution, and therefore awarding costs to both acquitted defendants was justified.
Source excerpt
The Court refused leave because the evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the applicant knew the giver's position in Heli Union and nonetheless wilfully failed to disclose or avoid the conflict when handling Heli Union's applications; that deliberate nondisclosure met the wilfulness and seriousness elements of misconduct in public office, and the trial judge's credibility findings and inferences were open on the evidence, making the conviction safe.
Source excerpt
Explore more
