Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 曾維誠及另一人

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA485/2024

Video and witness evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants intentionally or recklessly and jointly applied unlawful force by repeatedly and at close range spraying and pouring water at police officers and working journalists, conduct that exceeded any reasonable festival consent; therefore convictions for assault/battery and convictions on all counts were upheld and appeals dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Battery
• Consent
• Recklessness
• Joint enterprise
• Standard of appellate review

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 張子良

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA80/2024

On a re‑hearing of all evidence the court concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, without the data‑subject's consent and without verifying identities, disclosed sufficient identifying personal data and acted with recklessness as to the risk of specified harm; specified harm includes causing the person reasonably to be concerned for their safety or well‑being under s64(6)(c); therefore the convictions under PDPO s64(3A)/(3B) are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Personal data (privacy) ordinance s64(3a),(3b)
• Specified harm
• Recklessness
• Intent
• Appellate re-hearing standard
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 張曼華

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA475/2023

On re‑hearing the court concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, by using a hairdryer at maximum heat and close range on the child's collar, acted with culpable disregard for the child's safety causing second‑degree burns; the trial judge permissibly rejected the appellant's inconsistent account and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Recklessness
• Neglect of child
• Causation of injury
• Evidence and credibility
• Standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt)
• Appellate rehearing standard

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. VANDAMME, BASTIEN MATTHIEU JACQUES ROGER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA458/2022

The Court of First Instance allowed a magistracy appeal against a criminal damage conviction, holding the finding that the notice was torn was unsafe.

• Criminal damage
• Recklessness
• Mens rea
• Credibility assessment
• Rehearing standard
• Costs

Read case analysis

E & P GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO) v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA706/2010

The Court of First Instance dismissed a directors’ fraud and reckless breach claim over Grandtop, MAIL and KKL investments, finding the evidence did not prove fraud or recklessness.

• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Fraudulent breach of trust
• Recklessness
• Directors' duties
• Due diligence
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. CHAN CHEUK HEI

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA507/2021

On rehearing of a magistracy appeal, the court set aside a common assault conviction after finding the wrong test was applied and the verdict unsafe.

• Common assault
• Indecent assault
• Battery
• Recklessness (subjective)
• Good character direction
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 黎樹棋

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA56/2021

The conviction was upheld because the appellant did not discharge the burden to establish the statutory defence under s17I(1A) — he failed to take all reasonably practicable steps (his enquiries were perfunctory and he fabricated an employment contract) and therefore the trial judge correctly rejected his evidence; sentencing followed established guidance (starting point 3 months reduced to 2.5 months) but, on appeal, the custodial sentence was suspended for 24 months given the appellant had been deceived and had substantial mitigation.

Source excerpt

• Employment of unlawful workers
• Statutory defence under s17i(1a)
• Due diligence by employers
• Recklessness
• Credibility assessment
• Browne v dunn

Read case analysis

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of Final Appeal

Case number

FAMV195/2019

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a market misconduct case about allegedly false or misleading internet commentary on Evergrande shares.

• Recklessness
• Negligence
• Market commentary
• Freedom of expression
• Disgorgement
• Short selling

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 羅鑒池

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA27/2019

Appeal allowed because the trial judge's factual finding that the touching was intentional was unsafe: the judge failed to take proper account of the appellant's contemporaneous recorded explanation that the elbow contact occurred accidentally while closing the steamer door, rendering the conviction and sentence liable to be quashed.

Source excerpt

• Common assault
• Intent
• Recklessness
• Self-defence
• Factual findings

Read case analysis

ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV228/2016

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal in a market misconduct case, holding the proposed arguments on recklessness and negligence under s 277 SFO were not reasonably arguable.

• Market misconduct
• Recklessness
• Negligence
• Freedom of speech
• Leave to appeal to court of final appeal
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis