Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 17 summary offences ordinance

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO

Citation

HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA374/2014

The appellant intentionally possessed a large meat cleaver and, based on the nature of the implement, his conduct entering the police station, steady gait, failure to heed repeated warnings, reaction only after firearms were drawn, medical observation and recorded interview, the only reasonable inference beyond reasonable doubt is that he had the intent to use the chopper for an unlawful purpose (threatening or harming police); conviction under s17 is therefore upheld.
10 Oct 1995

R. v. HO KA ON

Citation

R. v. HO KA ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC550/1995

A small roll of domestic adhesive/cellulose tape is not an article manufactured for the purpose of restraining persons and therefore cannot be regarded as an "instrument fit for unlawful purposes" within s17 Cap 228 even where the accused admitted an intended unlawful use; accordingly the conviction under that charge was unsafe and must be quashed.
6 May 1983

THE QUEEN v. LIU YUK-SHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LIU YUK-SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC373/1983

Conviction for possession of an offensive weapon under s.17 was quashed because the evidence supported an innocent domestic use explanation and the conviction was against the weight of the evidence, even though the magistrate's factual findings are generally afforded deference.
11 Sept 1978

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHUNG YIM-FAI

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHUNG YIM-FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC757/1978

The magistrate was wrong to require evidence of risk to public order to sustain a conviction under section 33(1); he also had no jurisdiction under section 27(1) to amend the information in a way that would usurp the Attorney General's exclusive discretion to prefer charges; accordingly the conviction under the Summary Offences Ordinance was quashed and the magistrate should record conviction for the offence originally charged under section 33(1).

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAXMAN CHADARO

R. v. HO KA ON

THE QUEEN v. LIU YUK-SHING

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHUNG YIM-FAI