Hong Kong Case Law

17 May 2021

香港特別行政區 訴 黃俊廸

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1319

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA308/2020

Given the social context (judicially noticed), the quantity and nature of items found on the appellant including two substantial long-handled hammers suitable for forceful striking, and the totality of circumstantial evidence inspected on rehearing, the only reasonable inference was that the appellant possessed the hammers with intent to use them for unlawful destructive purposes; the use of judicial notice was proper and the conviction and nine-month sentence are safe and not manifestly excessive.

• Possession of instruments for unlawful purpose
• Judicial notice
• Inference of intent
• Appellate review (re-hearing)

21 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. KAM FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. KAM FAI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC461/2002

The Court held that although taxi robbery is serious, the facts were less grave than Tran Van Anh and a six year starting point was appropriate; applying a one-third reduction for the guilty plea produced a four year sentence for the attempted robbery. The 12 month sentence for unlawful entry should run consecutively because the applicant entered Hong Kong to commit the crime; the totality principle did not justify making that term concurrent in the circumstances.

• Attempted robbery
• Possession of instruments for unlawful purpose
• Illegal entry
• Sentencing principles
• Totality principle
• Guilty plea mitigation

2 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. PANG KA WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG KA WAI

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA377/1999

The conviction was upheld because the non-confession evidence was sufficient to support it; however the sentencing remark indicating punishment for denial of guilt was an error, warranting reduction of the custodial sentence from 6 months to 4 months immediate imprisonment.

• Possession of instruments for unlawful purpose
• Admissibility of confessions
• Police misconduct/assault allegations
• Sentencing principles

13 Jun 1973

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHEK WAH

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHEK WAH

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAAR12/1973

The Court held that the offence of escape from legal custody was independent of the other offences and that the magistrate's imposition of a concurrent three‑month sentence for escape was inadvertent; the sentence for escape must run consecutively to the concurrent sentences for the other offences, and the Attorney General's application is allowed.

• Escape from legal custody
• Concurrent vs consecutive sentencing
• Theft
• Possession of instruments for unlawful purpose
• Loitering/suspected person

24 Nov 1972

CHAN HUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN HUNG v. THE QUEEN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC759/1972

Given the appellant's appalling record, leniency was not justified, but the possession of the instrument was part of the same transaction as the loitering offence so the proper sentence is concurrency; appeal allowed in part to order concurrent sentences.

• Sentencing
• Recidivism
• Concurrent sentences
• Possession of instruments for unlawful purpose
• Loitering

WONG SHI-CHIU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG SHI-CHIU v. THE QUEEN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC119/1972

Convictions were quashed where procedural irregularities rendered them unsafe: the first conviction for possession of the necklace was unsound because the appellant was not in possession at arrest; the burglary conviction depended materially on a police statement which was admitted only after the defence evidence contrary to the requirement that admissibility be ruled before the close of the prosecution case; the conviction for possession of instruments was supported by independent evidence and is upheld.

• Unlawful possession
• Possession of instruments for unlawful purpose
• Burglary
• Admissibility of statements
• Voir dire
• Conviction quashing