Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Objective limb of provocation

  • 27 Dec 2023

    HKSAR v. BUI VAN-CUONG

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFA 46
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC35/2023

    The Court held the trial judge's directions were adequate and the jury had been fully apprised of the relevant matters; the applicant's personal hardships and mental state were not germane to the gravity of the alleged provocation (punches) and therefore not properly attributed to the hypothetical reasonable person; the Court of Appeal properly refused to admit fresh psychiatric evidence because doing so would unlawfully import diminished responsibility into provocation. The grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

  • 22 Sept 2017

    HKSAR v. TAM HO NAM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TAM HO NAM
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC3/2017

    Because the trial judge omitted the special direction required to guard against the impermissible reasoning that the scale and manner of retaliation necessarily negated the objective limb of provocation, in the factual context of a frenzied chopper attack and prosecution closing submissions inviting that reasoning, there was a departure from an accepted norm causing substantial and grave injustice; the conviction was therefore quashed and a re-trial ordered.

  • 23 Oct 2015

    HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LIANG YAOQIANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC131/2014

    By majority the Court refused the Certificate because the trial judge's summing‑up adequately conveyed the Lord Hobhouse approach and the Hong Kong Judicial Institute specimen direction properly reflected the law; the certified question was either academic or not a point of law of great and general importance arising from this decision, so leave to certify was denied.