Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resisting police

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2022

HKSAR v. LI LIHUA (AKA LI LEON)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 412
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA99/2019

The Court of First Instance allowed the appeal in relation to Offence 1, holding the Magistrate's 12‑month sentence was excessive given the forged identity card's poor quality, the spontaneous nature of the act under stress about his children, and insufficient consideration of humanitarian family circumstances; the appropriate starting point for Offence 1 was 6 months, reducing the total sentence from 18 to 12 months.
29 Oct 2021

香港特別行政區訴李駿昊

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3202
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA163/2021

The Court held the magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witness and rejection of the appellant's account was not plainly wrong; the prosecution proved the elements of resisting a police officer beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and eight‑week sentence were upheld.
29 Apr 2020

香港特別行政區訴王威

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 545
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA314/2019

The Court allowed the sentence appeal in part, holding that although the overall 20‑month aggregate term was not manifestly excessive, certain individual starting points and concurrency orders required adjustment: weapons and paraphernalia sentences were increased or decreased as appropriate and concurrency reallocated to preserve a total of 20 months while reflecting totality and the appellant's habitual offending.
23 Jan 2020

香港特別行政區訴謝濬廉

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA583/2018

Trial judge correctly found police had authority under s54(1) to stop/detain/search and, given the statutory power and ancillary powers under IGC s40(1), the officers were lawfully executing their duties and entitled to use reasonable force; CCTV and minor inconsistencies did not create reasonable doubt as to the central facts; therefore conviction for resisting a police officer was safe and must be upheld.
15 Apr 2019

香港特別行政區訴黃志豐

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 973
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA592/2018

The magistrate validly exercised sentencing discretion: three like offences were ordered concurrent and a dissimilar offence ordered consecutive; because the offences in this case were different from those in the earlier absconding case and were committed during a period of bail forfeiture/absconding, ordering the sentences to run (in part) consecutively to the prior 7‑month term did not breach the totality principle and was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
12 Apr 2017

HKSAR v. BUTT UMMAR

Citation

HKSAR v. BUTT UMMAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC324/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge carefully evaluated credibility and facts, minor discrepancies did not undermine essential truthfulness of prosecution witnesses, absence of fingerprint/DNA was a neutral factor, no showing that the judge's evaluation was absent, irrelevant, lacking, careless or flawed, and therefore no reasonably arguable ground of appeal against conviction existed.
13 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. CHIU KWOK WAI CAESAR

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU KWOK WAI CAESAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC294/2006

Because the police had taken constructive custody of the vehicles (they were aware the vehicles were stolen and kept them under observation), the vehicles ceased to be stolen goods under s 26(3) Theft Ordinance; therefore the conviction for handling stolen goods was unsustainable and must be quashed and substituted with an attempt to handle stolen goods. The sentences were not manifestly excessive and were upheld because the defendants' culpability, planning and aggravating circumstances remained unchanged and possession of forged plates justified separate punishment or an additional sentence.
30 Jun 2004

HKSAR v. ZHEN FUTING

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHEN FUTING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC509/2003

The Court held that although individual five and a half year sentences for the stun gun offences were manifestly excessive and should be reduced to four years nine months each, the overall totality of imprisonment (five years seven months) was not manifestly excessive given the objective seriousness of a cross‑border plan to commit robbery with multiple prepared weapons; judges must state a sentencing starting point and may properly take into account contextual aggravating features.
27 May 2004

HKSAR v. YIP SHU KAI

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP SHU KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA897/2003

The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate's detailed findings on credibility and fact were within his discretion, no substantive grounds of insufficiency, unfair trial or bias were established, and an appellate court will not re‑try evidence it was not in a position to assess directly.
14 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. Yeung Man

Citation

HKSAR v. Yeung Man
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA153/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Magistrate's findings that the police evidence was consistent, honest and reliable; an appellate court will not substitute its view for the tribunal of fact on credibility absent shown error.