Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public nuisance

Legal area

Court

24 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴莊玉瑜

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA248/2023

The High Court accepted the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the unedited CCTV evidence showing the appellant intentionally obstructed a government road, causing traffic disruption for over half an hour without lawful excuse; on that basis the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the fine of HK$8,000 was a proportionate sentence, so both conviction and sentence were upheld.
14 Sept 2023

香港特別行政區訴連俊雄及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2316
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA160/2022

Magistrate's acquittals of D1 and D2 are upheld because the proved evidence did not show they carried out the unlawful acts of obstructing train doors and the prosecution did not properly advance a joint enterprise case at trial; therefore there was no perverse conclusion and no error in not applying joint enterprise.
15 Nov 2021

香港特別行政區訴賈雲龍

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3380
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA81/2021

The conviction was quashed because the trial magistrate misidentified the individual in the defence video; the combined video evidence did not show the appellant assaulting the officer and therefore the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
30 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. TAI YIU TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 630
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC128/2019

The Court held that the conspiracy and incitement charges were lawfully preferred and sufficiently certain in the circumstances; the common law offences (including incitement to incite) applied in Hong Kong; the judge properly applied the reasonableness/proportionality balance bearing in mind constitutional rights and found requisite mens rea, causation and common injury; leave to appeal was refused and all appeals dismissed.
16 Nov 2020

香港特別行政區訴陳國標

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2859
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA415/2019

Scattering birdseed in a public place constituted "litter"/"discarding" within the statutory definitions; the act would likely attract birds and create hygiene and nuisance risks so was lawfully prohibited; the appellant's cultural or belief claims did not outweigh the statutory public health objective. The evidence and reasoning supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
31 Oct 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a) AND (b) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2007/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2777
30 Aug 2019

MTR CORPORATION LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY OBSTRUCTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PROPER USE AND OPERATION OF THE RAILWAY AS DEFINED IN THE MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY ORDINANCE (CAP 556) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1551/2019

There were serious issues to be tried based on repeated, escalating and documented incidents of obstruction, vandalism and harassment; damages would be inadequate to protect railway operations, staff and passengers; on balance of convenience and subject to proportional limitations the continuation of a narrowly tailored interlocutory injunction was justified until trial or further order; joinder of a passenger seeking relief regarding police conduct was refused for lack of locus.
23 Aug 2019

AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY OBSTRUCTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PROPER USE OF THE HONG KONG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1471/2019

The court continued the varied ex parte injunction because there was a serious issue to be tried (breach of the Airport Authority Bylaw and/or public nuisance), damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured preserving airport operations and public safety; accordingly the variation to paragraph 5, continuation of the injunction, leave to execute on a Sunday and substituted service were granted until trial or further order.
15 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. TAI YIU TING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 938
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC128/2019

Bail pending appeal was granted because the appeal was not hopeless, the respondent accepted there was no substantial risk of absconding, and the appellant would have served the substantial majority of his sentence by the time the appeal was heard, making continued detention unnecessary.
18 Jan 2019

KO SHUN v. ROYAL MORTGAGE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 85
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5242/2018

The summons for an interlocutory mandatory injunction is dismissed because there is no serious question to be tried on the claimed vehicular right of way (the owners of the servient tenements are not parties and the plaintiff as a licensee lacks locus for lost modern grant), public nuisance was not pleaded and private nuisance was not demonstrated; the plaintiff has not shown the high degree of assurance of success required for a mandatory injunction and delay plus available interim parking arrangements undermine any claim of irreparable harm, so the balance of convenience favors the defendan…