Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transferred malice

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2022

香港特別行政區訴尹載道

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA166/2021

The conviction is safe because objective video evidence and PW1's credible evidence, accepted by the trial judge who had the advantage of seeing witnesses, support that the appellant intentionally and unlawfully assaulted PW1; transferred malice doctrine was correctly noted as alternative reasoning but the primary basis was that the appellant knew his actions would hit PW1; no serious unfairness or flagrant counsel incompetence was shown to undermine the trial.
13 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. RAHMAN MD. RAIHAN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA207/2020

The Magistrate's detailed credibility findings were supportable: the Appellant threatened Bradshaw, retrieved scissors and chased him, Naz was injured while attempting to disarm the Appellant; inconsistencies did not vitiate the core account; therefore the convictions for criminal intimidation and, by application of transferred malice, assault occasioning actual bodily harm are justified and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. NG MAN YUEN AVERY

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 33
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC15/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the prosecution's complaint, while raising issues about the High Court quashing a conviction on unargued grounds and the right to be heard, did not present a point of law of great and general importance nor demonstrate the rare and exceptional 'substantial and grave injustice' warranting final appellate intervention; established authorities already require the opportunity to be heard and no new pronouncement was necessary.
21 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. JOW GANNON WALTER SUTTER

Citation

HKSAR v. JOW GANNON WALTER SUTTER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC352/2011

The Court upheld the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion to impose partly consecutive sentences because the stabbing of the second victim added distinct and additional culpability to the act causing death, and the overall 10-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
11 Nov 2008

HKSAR v. LAU KIN LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU KIN LAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC434/2007

The judge gave a fair and balanced summing up; on the medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence the jury were entitled to reject diminished responsibility, provocation and accidental killing, and therefore the convictions for three counts of murder were safe and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
18 Oct 2004

SZE KWAN LUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

SZE KWAN LUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2004

The convictions were quashed because Gall J positively misdirected the jury on the proper approach to defence evidence, rendering all convictions unsafe; accordingly the appeal is allowed and all appellants are ordered retried on two counts of manslaughter and one of arson; additionally, the court clarified that liability under joint enterprise can sustain a murder conviction against a participant even if the actual killer is not so convicted.
18 Oct 2004

SZE KWAN LUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

SZE KWAN LUNG AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/2004

The convictions were unsafe and must be quashed because Gall J materially misdirected the jury on the proper approach to defence evidence; that misdirection undermined the reliability of all convictions and warrants quashing and ordering retrial despite correct statements of joint enterprise law that participants can be liable even if the actual killer is not convicted.
16 May 2003

HKSAR v. OH EUGENE JAE-HOON

Citation

HKSAR v. OH EUGENE JAE-HOON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA369/2002

The magistrate properly applied the Cunningham test to the assault and Caldwell to the criminal damage; credible independent eyewitness evidence established that the appellant threw rocks that caused PW1 to apprehend immediate unlawful violence and that one rock damaged PW2's parked car; self-defence was not available on the facts; alleged tape tampering and non-disclosure did not materially prejudice the defence. Consequently the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.