Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Riot

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

香港特別行政區訴明子軒及另十人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 901
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC17/2024

The Court dismissed conviction appeals of D3 and D13, holding the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were not plainly wrong and did not amount to unfairness or bias; the Court adjusted sentencing starting points downward from the trial judge where appropriate (setting 5.5 years for the April 18/related riot charge and 6 years for the broader 17–18 November charge) and allowed sentence appeals for D2, D3, D5, D7, D9, D10, D11, D12, D14 and D15 with specific revised terms, while upholding D13's conviction and sentence.
17 Oct 2025

HKSAR v. TANG KA MAN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 935
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC9/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge correctly applied legal principles: identification was properly found on the cumulative evidence with appropriate caution, the judge lawfully inferred a conspiracy from conduct and planning, she addressed and found the requisite specific intent for conspiracy to wound (not conflating foresight with intent), and the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable.
5 Sept 2025

香港特別行政區訴何志豪及另四人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 769
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC34/2023

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to admit and rely on D2's cautioned statements and to make the factual inferences supporting convictions for D2, D4, D6 and D7 on the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence; however, the late post-evidence addition of a riot charge against D3 created unfairness not cured by available remedies and the conviction and sentence on that added charge must be quashed.
7 Mar 2025

香港特別行政區訴張賀祺

Citation

[2025] HKCA 245
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC4/2023

The Court held the sentencing judge had properly considered youth and permissibly limited the youth discount to particular co-defendants; however, on an assessment of relative culpability the appellant's possession of a surgical mask and a glove was less culpable than items held by some co-defendants and warranted a modest reduction in sentence. The appeal was therefore allowed in part and the custodial term reduced from 5 years to 4 years 9 months.
17 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴林顯誠及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 340
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC1017/2020

Given the procedural posture (case‑stated appeal remitting the matter) and subsequent appellate guidance on drawing inferences from presence at a riot, the court found a material change in the legal context. The proposed evidence by the defendants was relevant to issues the court must now determine, would not unfairly prejudice the prosecution, and would not disrupt the orderly conduct of the proceedings. Therefore the court exercised its discretion to allow the first and fifth defendants to reopen their defence.
17 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴梁少明及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 930
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's rejection of the applicants' accounts and her inferences from the cumulative environmental circumstantial evidence were open to her on the facts and entitled to deference, and the sentences imposed fell within an acceptable range given the scale and violence of the riot and were not manifestly excessive.
12 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴李茵茵

Citation

[2024] HKCA 860
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC237/2023

The single-judge refused leave to appeal because the trial judge did not err in principle nor impose a manifestly excessive sentence: the offences were serious, the applicant actively participated in group violence and later disposed of shoes to defeat identification, mitigating factors (including volunteer service and some provocation) were insufficient to outweigh aggravating features, and the totality principle supported the cumulative sentence of five years six months.
17 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴徐俊傑

Citation

[2024] HKDC 949
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC329/2022

The court found the legal representatives credible and supported by contemporaneous signed instructions, the defendant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, medical evidence did not show incapacity to the requisite degree, and there was sufficient time and explanation; consequently the plea was voluntary and informed and there was no proper basis to exercise the court's discretion to allow withdrawal — the application to overturn the guilty plea was dismissed.
1 Dec 2023

律政司司長訴梁子揚及另四人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1318
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR1/2023

The court held the original 2‑year starting point for the charged riot offence was an error in principle and manifestly low given the PolyU riot context; the appropriate baseline for the offence was not less than 3 years. Applying recognized plea‑discounts would have produced lower terms (eg. timely pleas reduced by one‑third, later pleas by c.20%), but the Court exercised its discretion under s.81A and declined to increase the existing sentences because doing so would not be in the public interest given mitigating practical considerations (including imminent release). Thus the review applica…
20 Sept 2023

香港特別行政區訴劉晉旭及另三人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1098
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC243/2021

The Court held the primary factual findings (video evidence, location, clothing, equipment, timing and items recovered) supported the irresistible inference that the applicants were within the riot zone and intended by their presence to encourage collective disruptive conduct; consequently leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused and the convictions and concurrent sentences of 4 years 9 months were upheld.