Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offensive weapon

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2025

香港特別行政區訴曾文達

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA120/2024

On a full re‑hearing the appellate court concluded the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed the two plastic strips (P2) as offensive weapons with intent to use them for causing injury. Material deficiencies in the prosecution's case (absence of photographic evidence of the items in situ and of the boot, the innocuous physical nature of P2, and credible possibilities raised by defence evidence that P2 had a legitimate domestic purpose) together with unresolved doubts about the weight to attach to the oral confession meant the conviction could not stan…
1 Apr 2022

HKSAR v. HO KA LOK AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 278
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC238/2021

Given the proximity of the separately fixed 30-day trials (less than six months away) and absence of sufficient justification or material change to outweigh prejudice and logistical disruption, the judge exercised case management discretion to refuse consolidation and dismissed the application.
17 May 2018

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 22
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC5/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because Question (1) did not raise a reasonably arguable point of law and was not raised earlier; on the facts the chilli liquid could cause more than trivial discomfort and the magistrate's inference that the applicant intended to use it to cause injury was irresistible, and Question (2) was withdrawn by counsel.
29 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO

Citation

HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA374/2014

The appellant intentionally possessed a large meat cleaver and, based on the nature of the implement, his conduct entering the police station, steady gait, failure to heed repeated warnings, reaction only after firearms were drawn, medical observation and recorded interview, the only reasonable inference beyond reasonable doubt is that he had the intent to use the chopper for an unlawful purpose (threatening or harming police); conviction under s17 is therefore upheld.
25 Jun 2009

HKSAR v. CHAN MING LOK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN MING LOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA225/2009

Although the magistrate may have risked relying on the questionable category "suitable for causing injury", the appellant's admissions that he carried the knife for self‑defence supported an inference of intention to use it as a weapon; in the absence of imminent danger there was no lawful authority or reasonable excuse, so conviction was properly maintained; sentence was excessive and reduced from 6 to 4 months given mitigating features.
19 May 2008

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA19/2008

The amendment altered material particulars (time, place and nature) effectively substituting one incident for another; because consent under s.33(5) had been given in respect of the original particulars and no fresh consent was obtained, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the amended charge and the conviction was quashed.
22 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. CHEN PEIHONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEN PEIHONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC479/2004

The court concluded the renewal of the application for leave to appeal against sentence had no merit because the admitted facts established intent, the sentencing starting points and one-third guilty plea discount were appropriate, and therefore refused renewal and ordered under s83W CPO that one month of time served shall not count against the sentence.
9 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. LEE SHING PO

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SHING PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA64/2005

Because the magistrate omitted to state the factual or legal basis under which the knife was an offensive weapon the consideration of reasonable excuse was premature; there was insufficient evidence to infer intent to injure; accordingly the conviction and sentence were quashed.
10 Oct 1995

R. v. HO KA ON

Citation

R. v. HO KA ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC550/1995

A small roll of domestic adhesive/cellulose tape is not an article manufactured for the purpose of restraining persons and therefore cannot be regarded as an "instrument fit for unlawful purposes" within s17 Cap 228 even where the accused admitted an intended unlawful use; accordingly the conviction under that charge was unsafe and must be quashed.
6 Dec 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WAI KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC403/1985

Although robbery offences normally require substantial imprisonment, the Court found that the appellant's real remorse, youth, prior good character and favourable Training Centre/Probation reports made the 5 year imprisonment improper and that the appropriate disposition was detention in a Training Centre, so the sentence was varied accordingly.