Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No‑case submission

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2020

HKSAR v. HO PAK HONG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 958
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC153/2019

Leave to appeal against convictions and sentences refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the trial judge's interventions and directions were appropriate and not prejudicial; the incomplete admitted facts and fingerprint non‑disclosure were shown to be inconclusive and caused no prejudice; and the sentencing enhancements for recruitment/use of a minor were a lawful exercise of discretion consistent with authority and the totality principle.
16 Jul 2019

HKSAR v. GARCIA ARISTIZABAL MARIA ALEJANDRA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC110/2019

The application under section 16(1) was dismissed because a properly directed jury could reasonably infer from the defendant's active assistance in disposing drugs from the bathroom window together with other evidence of residence and packets recovered below the window that the 5th defendant was in joint possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; therefore a prima facie case exists and the matter is for the jury.
18 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. OLOYEDE WASIU OLANREWAJU

Citation

[2018] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC349/2016

The judge properly rejected the no‑case, discharge and stay applications because the officers’ explanations of inconsistencies went to credibility for the jury, any hearsay was marginal and cured by directions, interpreter slips were immaterial to the defence, and the trial was not unfair; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the conviction upheld.
20 Jun 2013

HKSAR v. LO YIU WA

Citation

HKSAR v. LO YIU WA<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC232/2012

The conviction stands because the circumstantial evidence (tenant status, drugs and packaging found in flat, matching distinctive purple bags, the co-accused leaving carrying the bag shortly before arrest, and the applicant's own admissions permitting storage) was sufficient and the judge properly directed the jury; however the aggregate sentence of 12 years was excessive because insufficient account was taken of the guilty plea to count 2, and on appeal the total sentence is reduced to 10 years 9 months by altering the consecutive portion of count 2 from 2 years to 9 months.
11 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. KOON LAM LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. KOON LAM LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA351/2006

Exhibit P2, though appearing to reflect a legitimate consolidation, was false because it misrepresented the actual transaction to Squina and was used for accounting purposes; the particulars sufficiently alleged falsity; the magistrate rightly rejected the no‑case submission and was entitled to infer dishonest intent in the absence of the appellant's explanation, therefore the conviction was affirmed.
11 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. TANG YIU HONG ERIC AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG YIU HONG ERIC AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC307/2002

The Court of Appeal held that the trial was fair despite counsel withdrawal, the judge's directions on legal issues (dishonesty, ingredients of offences, inferences, documentary weight and jury verdict procedure) were adequate and timely, the jury verdicts were safe and not the product of impermissible pressure, and the concurrent ten-year sentences were within appropriate range given the seriousness, public impact and need for deterrence; accordingly the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
8 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD SHAZAD NASEEM

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD SHAZAD NASEEM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA243/2004

The magistrate failed to consider whether the reopening of the prosecution case and the recalling of PW6 would prejudice the accused; that failure was an error of law that rendered the conviction unsafe, thereby justifying quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial before another magistrate.
18 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. TSANG CHUN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG CHUN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA511/1999

The Magistrate's credibility findings were within her proper evaluative function; the noted discrepancies did not render the prosecution evidence inherently improbable and did not create a lurking doubt as to safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction and fine were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
26 May 1998

HKSAR v. POON LAI LIN and Another

Citation

HKSAR v. POON LAI LIN and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC720/1996

Where the prosecution adduces evidence which, taken at its highest, is capable of supporting a conviction, it is the jury's role to assess credibility; the judge correctly left the case to the jury, gave adequate directions on accomplice and identification evidence, the acquittals on some counts did not render other convictions unsafe, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive given the scale of drug trafficking involved.
24 Aug 1994

CHAN WAI v. R.

Citation

CHAN WAI v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC688/1993

The convictions were unsafe because a material irregularity occurred when the complainant was counselled by a police psychologist during trial and the summing-up failed to fairly and adequately direct the jury on critical weaknesses (delay, lack of corroboration, medical evidence undermining penetration); additionally the trial judge improperly increased sentence for the defendant having required the complainant to give evidence. These combined defects deprived the defendant of a fair trial, warranting quashing of convictions and no re-trial.