Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Obstruction of police

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

香港特別行政區訴谷翠香

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA54/2025

After rehearing all evidence the court accepted the trial judge's credibility findings and the prosecution case: the meter was Water Supplies Department property, appellant arranged its removal and retained it dishonestly, and appellant wilfully obstructed a police officer who had identified himself and was performing his duty; therefore both convictions were proved beyond reasonable doubt and sentences were not manifestly excessive.
17 Jun 2024

律政司司長訴李兆聰

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA81/2023

The magistrate committed legal error by focusing on the legality of the later formal arrest and on whether the person actually committed unlawful assembly rather than whether the arresting officer, at the moment of stopping/subduing, had an objectively reasonable basis (under s54(2)/s50 principles) to suspect commission of an offence; the magistrate also improperly weighed collateral matters (another officer's use of force and policing tactics) and made impermissible factual determinations at the no‑case stage. Those errors justify allowing the appeal and remitting the case for rehearing befo…
14 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴丁群洲

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1828
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA299/2022

The trial judge properly accepted the close‑range police evidence that the appellant forcefully pulled and caused a male officer to fall and kicked and scratched a female officer during arrest; those findings proved two counts of assaulting police beyond reasonable doubt. On retrial review, the appellate court found no error in the credibility assessments or in sentencing and therefore upheld the convictions for counts 2 and 3 and the sentence of 8 weeks for each with 2 weeks concurrent, total 10 weeks immediate imprisonment.
16 May 2023

香港特別行政區訴梁俊熹及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 850
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA166/2022

On re‑examination of the evidence including video, the judge found the only reasonable inference was that D6 cooperated with D5: D6 supplied the umbrella, remained in close proximity, observed and was available to assist, fled with D5 and thereafter loitered to observe the scene; these facts sustain conviction for obstructing a police officer and the appeal is dismissed.
23 Sept 2022

律政司司長訴陳興東

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1415
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR1/2022

Court allowed the prosecution's review: dangerous driving benchmark set at 24 months but reduced to 16 months after plea; obstruction benchmark set at 6 months reduced to 4 months after plea; offences 3 and 4 each set at 4 months; concurrency structured so offences 1 and 2 are partially consecutive (two months consecutive), offences 3 and 4 fully concurrent with each other and fully consecutive to offences 1/2 group; applying totality and a 3‑month discretionary reduction for a sentence review yielded an aggregate custodial term of 19 months, replacing the original 10 months.
3 May 2022

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHO HONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1297
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA91/2022

The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate properly considered psychiatric and psychological reports recommending in-patient treatment; the offences were not trivial; and the appellant's extensive history and very high assessed risk of sexual reoffending justified the concurrent four-month hospital order.
12 Jan 2022

香港特別行政區訴梁鵬

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA432/2021

Notice of the appeal was properly served and the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to prosecute the appeal; the trial magistrate's convictions were supported by sufficient factual basis and free from error and the sentences were not plainly wrong or excessive; therefore the appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed; bail is forfeited and an arrest warrant is issued; the Department of Justice is ordered to investigate the delay in notifying the court of the appellant's breach of bail conditions and report results to the court and the Commissioner of Police.
8 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴周柏均及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1039
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC475/2020

法院認為辯方所索之PGO/FPM章節及兩份內部調查報告與本案爭點無關或非必需披露；即使部分內容相關，政務司司長已發PII證書並提出充分理據，該等文件受公眾利益豁免保護；且在現有已披露的證人供詞下，被告不會因不披露該等文件而被剝奪公平審訊，故駁回披露申請並確認PII保護。
22 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴盧佩瑤

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 145
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA247/2020

The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle in imposing concurrent custodial sentences of 2 and 8 months (total 8 months) given the seriousness, scale and potential danger to railway operations and passengers; probation report recommendations are not binding and did not create an enforceable expectation of a non-custodial sentence; although the magistrate's application of juvenile participation as aggravation was partly misplaced as to this appellant, that error did not render the overall sentence disproportionate and the total 8-month concurrent term was appropriate and main…
17 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴吳文遠及另二人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA492/2019

On the facts demonstrated by video and witness evidence the appellants’ conduct met the statutory and common law elements: A1’s public exhortations to climb and breach police barriers constituted incitement to disorderly conduct likely to lead to unlawful assembly; A2 intentionally resisted and impeded police removal of A1; A3 actively advanced and pushed barriers; an objective bystander (police, journalists, road users) could reasonably apprehend that the conduct would lead to breach of the peace; police operational decisions and cordons were proportionate. Therefore convictions were upheld.