Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Rehearing on appeal

  • 5 May 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 張兆鈞

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2466
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA275/2025

    The appellate court, on rehearing of the trial evidence and dashcam footage, concluded the trial judge rightly accepted the front driver’s credible evidence and the footage, found the appellant approached at an insufficiently reduced speed and only braked urgently at very short range, and that this constituted a failure to exercise appropriate care and regard for other road users; there was no evidence of brake failure to rebut that conclusion, so the conviction for careless driving stands.

  • 8 Apr 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 黃麗儀

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1891
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA373/2025

    The appellate court, having reviewed the CCTV and the police witness transcript, found the CCTV did not clearly show the taking and the police evidence was vague and lacking detail; even if the police were honest their evidence was unreliable and insufficient to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt; conviction therefore unsafe and quashed.

  • 18 Mar 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 鍾碩琛

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1525
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA42/2025

    On a rehearing the High Court accepted PW1’s credible, consistent evidence corroborated by sketches and photographs and rejected the appellant’s account as implausible; the evidence did not establish dangerous driving (running a red light) beyond reasonable doubt but did establish that the appellant failed to exercise the requisite care when turning and therefore was rightly convicted of careless driving; the appeal is dismissed and the original fine upheld.

  • 4 Feb 2026

    香港特別行政區 訴 雷暢賜

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 737
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA409/2025

    Having reheard the case on the evidence, the High Court concluded the magistrate's starting point of 7.5 weeks custody was appropriate for 0.58g of cocaine and that the magistrate acted leniently by granting a one-third plea discount (more than the usual one-fifth for a plea on the first day). The sentence of 5 weeks immediate custody was therefore not manifestly excessive and was upheld.

  • 26 Sept 2025

    HKSAR v. KHAN, MOHAMMAD SALEEM

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5550
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA69/2025

    On rehearing the court accepted the magistrate's credibility findings and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew his account was closed and dishonestly issued the cheque to induce the complainant to wait for payment; accordingly the conviction under s18B(1)(b) Theft Ordinance is upheld.

  • 8 Jul 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 温志成

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4252
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA470/2024

    On rehearing the court, after reviewing CCTV and witness evidence, accepted the Crown's case that the appellant picked up P2(1) from the shelf, did not return it and left without paying, and that this established appropriation with dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge's conviction for theft of that one book was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.

  • 11 Dec 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 吳騰海

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3528
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA235/2023

    On rehearing the appellate judge accepted the trial judge's credibility findings because the dashcam footage and photos objectively showed the motorcyclist in the left of the frame before and as the appellant began his right turn; the appellant's account would imply an implausible very high speed by PW1 inconsistent with minor damage and injuries; speculative allegations of collusion lacked evidence; therefore the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction must stand.

  • 12 Aug 2024

    HKSAR v. ASIM, UR REHMAN

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1768
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA50/2023

    The magistrate erred by relying on the complainant's statement that she would not fabricate the allegation and by failing to address and evaluate material discrepancies between the complainant's evidence and the teacher's account; those discrepancies, considered on rehearing, cast doubt on credibility and rendered the conviction unsafe, mandating allowance of the appeal.

  • 2 May 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳淑基

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1402
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA80/2023

    The High Court, on rehearing, accepted the trial judge's credibility findings and the unedited dashcam footage showing the appellant moved from the second lane into the first without sufficiently ensuring it was safe; that conduct fell below the standard of a careful driver and the prosecution proved the offence under Cap.374 s.38(1) beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction was upheld.

  • 8 Nov 2023

    HKSAR v. HUI LAI KI (許麗琪)

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFA 35
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC38/2022

    Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Judge departed from established sentencing and appellate norms by requiring an identifiable error before intervening on a rehearing and that the applicant's evidence may have been wrongly rejected on the basis of alleged inconsistencies; the Court framed the central question of when a CFI must re‑assess evidence on an appeal under section 113 and when it may overturn a magistrate's conviction on the basis of its own view of the evidence.