Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sufficiency and safety of conviction

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴葉浩賢

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA398/2021

Conviction quashed because, on a full re‑hearing of the admitted evidence and videos, and given that the prosecution limited its case to the subjective basis (intent to provoke others under s17B(2)), the accepted evidence did not exclude reasonable alternative inferences and therefore did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to provoke others to breach the peace. The fresh footage CF1 was not admitted and did not alter the assessment; nonetheless the conviction was unsafe on the evidence presented under the pleaded basis.
27 Apr 2007

HKSAR v. POON CHUN KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. POON CHUN KIT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2006

Interpreting s159A, it is sufficient for conspiracy that a defendant agreed that others should offer advantages to him; he need not personally perform the offer. The 1st defendant's conviction was lawful and his application dismissed. The 4th defendant's conviction was unsafe because it rested solely on a single witness's vague and inconsistent recollection after a long delay; leave to appeal was granted and the 4th defendant's conviction was quashed.
19 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. TAN THUAN HENG LAWRENCE

Citation

HKSAR v. TAN THUAN HENG LAWRENCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA236/2005

The magistrate's failure to hold a voir dire on the voluntariness of the post‑record in the police notebook, together with real doubts about ownership and provenance of the batteries, rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction and sentence set aside.
3 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. CHANG CHI LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHANG CHI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA328/2005

The magistrate's finding that the appellant intentionally struck the officer was properly based on contemporaneous eyewitness testimony describing three quick successive blows, the officer's testimony about being stunned and receiving forceful blows, the accompanying foul language, and medical evidence of redness; discrepancies were minor and did not render the conviction unsafe, so the appeal was dismissed.
31 May 2001

HKSAR v. WONG CHI LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA242/2001

The appeal was dismissed because the trial established all statutory elements: the appellant made and used a false instrument, knew the spouse's signature was forged, intended a Fire Services Department officer to accept the document as genuine, and the statutory prejudice under s70(1)(f) was proved; procedural objections and voluntariness of the form did not undermine conviction safety.
26 Aug 2000

HKSAR v. LAW WAI KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW WAI KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA594/2000

The appeal was allowed because material unresolved discrepancies and anomalies between the master CCTV tape and the defence copy, together with other unresolved evidentiary matters, rendered the conviction unsafe; consequently the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.
25 Mar 1985

LEUNG CHI-WING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEUNG CHI-WING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA196/1985

Although the magistrate's statement did not expressly address self-defence, the accepted evidence and findings that the appellant left the scene, obtained a hammer and returned established conduct inconsistent with acting only in self-defence; therefore the omission did not make the conviction unsafe and the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 葉浩賢

HKSAR v. POON CHUN KIT AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. TAN THUAN HENG LAWRENCE

HKSAR v. CHANG CHI LUNG

HKSAR v. WONG CHI LUNG

HKSAR v. LAW WAI KIN

LEUNG CHI-WING v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴葉浩賢