Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Upskirting

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴馮宣明

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA206/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge correctly applied appellate authorities establishing that upskirting is a serious public‑order and privacy offence for which short immediate custody is the appropriate benchmark, the investigative delay was not unreasonable nor unfair and did not warrant mitigation, and the judge properly declined non‑custodial disposal given repeat offending and need for deterrence; the starting point of 21 days reduced to 14 days for plea was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
10 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. SAN JUAN, NELSON ORO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA49/2018

Magistrate materially misapprehended and mixed up key evidence; the video primarily showed reflections and did not establish deliberate targeting of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt; PW2's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable; prosecution failed to exclude accidental activation of the video; on rehearing the conviction was unsafe and therefore quashed.
20 Mar 2018

香港特別行政區訴黃志謙

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 607
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA569/2017

The trial judge's acceptance of the eyewitness as credible and the contemporaneous observation of an iPhone in recording mode, together with the conduct of placing two stacked phones into the complainant's skirt for about three minutes, justified the inference of an attempt to photograph and supported conviction for an act contrary to public morality; the absence of recovered images did not create a reasonable doubt sufficient to overturn the conviction.
13 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI HO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA288/2006

Appellate court held that the offence of photographing under the skirt of a 14‑year‑old in school uniform was sufficiently aggravated to require immediate custodial punishment for deterrence and protection; a starting point of six weeks was appropriate and, after discount for the guilty plea, a custodial sentence of four weeks (unsuspended) was substituted for the two‑month sentence imposed below.
16 Sept 2004

HKSAR v. YIP TAK MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP TAK MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA727/2004

The court upheld the magistrate's finding that placing a camera beneath a woman's skirt on a crowded MTR escalator during rush hour was disorderly conduct which was inherently and realistically likely to provoke members of the public to resort to force or violence, so that a breach of the peace was likely within s17B(2); absence of actual violence was fortuitous and did not undermine the likelihood assessment.
10 Mar 2004

HKSAR v. MA KEI WING

Citation

HKSAR v. MA KEI WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1260/2003

The magistrate's finding of loitering was unsupported because it relied on an inference drawn from evidence of the appellant that the magistrate had rejected; loitering was not proved and therefore the conviction/sentence could not stand.
8 Nov 2003

HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUK YIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUK YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA641/2003

The Magistrate, as primary fact-finder, accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the Appellant's; on findings that the Appellant followed the complainant, positioned himself behind her and held a camera-phone under her skirt for an appreciable time, his presence constituted loitering with a non-innocent purpose and caused reasonable concern, therefore the conviction under s.160(3) was legally sustainable and the appeal on conviction fails.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 馮宣明

HKSAR v. SAN JUAN, NELSON ORO

香港特別行政區 訴 黃志謙

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI HO

HKSAR v. YIP TAK MING

HKSAR v. MA KEI WING

HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUK YIN

香港特別行政區訴馮宣明

香港特別行政區訴黃志謙