Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Theft ordinance

Legal area

Court

12 May 2016

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP532/2016

The court declined leave to appeal on the general PSI ruling because the judge correctly found the principal risks related to offences under the Theft Ordinance and that the risk of additional charges such as conspiracy to defraud, absent Theft Ordinance charges, was fanciful under Khan v Khan; but the court granted limited leave on the separate point that tax evasion could represent a real independent risk requiring fuller argument.
29 May 2009

HKSAR v. CHONG CHI HO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG CHI HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC259/2008

The convictions were safe because the trial judge properly evaluated and cautioned about accomplice evidence given under conditional immunity, legitimately relied on documentary corroboration for non-hearsay purposes (supported by bankers' affirmations and statutory admissions), and there was no legal obligation to treat omissions as perjury or to give special warnings about privilege absent specific evidential circumstances; therefore leave to appeal was refused and convictions upheld.
6 Nov 2006

CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2006

The trial judge's directions on how jurors should deliberate were materially flawed (use of board of directors analogy, 'give and take', 'collectively') and produced a contradictory amalgam apt to confuse the jury; therefore the jury was misdirected, convictions were quashed, the proviso to s.83 CPO was not applied because it could not be said a properly instructed jury would inevitably convict, and a retrial for the 1st appellant on specified false accounting counts was ordered with bail pending retrial.
29 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. LEE SHING HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SHING HUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC29/2006

Serving the sentence does not of itself preclude ordering a retrial; the appellate court's decision to order retrial is a discretionary exercise balancing public interest and the defendant's interests, and the decision below did not exceed that discretion, so leave to appeal is refused.
30 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. LEI CHUN FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LEI CHUN FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1176/2004

The magistrate's chosen sentences and the consecutive order were justified by the seriousness of stealing from a public hospital, the separate and distinct nature of the offences, the appellant's lengthy and serious criminal record, and appropriate application of starting points and discounts; therefore the appeals against sentence are dismissed.
20 Mar 1975

WONG TUNG HEI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG TUNG HEI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC140/1975

The one year imprisonment for taking the bicycle was beyond the magistrate's statutory jurisdiction under s.14(2) of the Theft Ordinance; substituting a fine (with an imprisonment option for non-payment) would unjustly increase the appellant's overall punishment because the original concurrent one year terms would remain, so the correct and just remedy was to set aside the illegal sentence and grant an unconditional discharge with no conviction recorded on that charge; the burglary sentences were proper and upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHONG CHI HO

CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. LEE SHING HUNG

HKSAR v. LEI CHUN FAI

WONG TUNG HEI v. THE QUEEN