Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness intimidation

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2025

GOLDJET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. RANDAL ALAN WHITECOTTON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2018

The Court found the defendants knowingly advanced a misleading and untruthful defence, pursued a scandalous smearing campaign, and caused threats and interference with the plaintiff's solicitors and witnesses such that their litigation conduct was wicked and venal, justifying indemnity costs. Separately, because the plaintiff obtained judgment better than its sanctioned offer and the defendants had the information and opportunity to accept, the statutory sanctions in Order 22 r 24 (indemnity costs and interest on costs) apply. Amendments to the Variation Summons were properly granted and serv…
28 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴梁國輝

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA234/2025

The court affirmed that 6 months was an appropriate starting point for each offence given repeated conduct, weapon use and that the victim was a witness, and that a small deduction of 3 days for compensation was warranted; the two offences should run consecutively as they were committed on different dates and involved different elements. However, the trial judge erred in ordering full consecutive execution with the earlier 5‑month sentence without adequately quantifying how much should be concurrent; on totality review the Court ordered 2 months of the prior 5‑month sentence to run concurrent…
24 Sept 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI KWOK WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2254/2020

Defendants deliberately harassed and intimidated witnesses within the court precincts causing fear and affecting the administration of justice; apologies and claimed illnesses did not sufficiently reduce responsibility; therefore, absent exceptional circumstances, immediate custodial sentences of three months each are required to uphold witness protection and the rule of law.
26 Aug 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI KWOK WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2107
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2254/2020

The deliberate harassment, abusive shouting and obscene gestures by the defendants at witnesses exiting the Inquest, captured on video and corroborated by witness testimony, constituted criminal contempt because the acts were inherently likely to interfere with the administration of justice; for this form of contempt basic intent to do the acts was sufficient and the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
18 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN PONG ANDREW

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2321
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP729/2020

Bail refused because, on the material before the court, a properly directed jury could convict the applicant of murder through joint enterprise liability; that prospect creates substantial grounds to believe the applicant would fail to surrender, commit offences while on bail and interfere with witnesses, satisfying the statutory criteria for refusal of bail.
26 Feb 2016

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI, also known as WONG SIN LEI AND OTHERS

Citation

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI, also known as WONG SIN LEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL34/2013

The court found plaintiffs failed to prove Hung was beneficial owner but found Excel was the legal/beneficial owner of the Shares absent reliable evidence of D1's alleged Investment Agreement; Wong (D1) breached fiduciary duties by disposing of the Shares without authority; D2 and D5 dishonestly assisted the breach and are jointly and severally liable with D1; D3 and D4 were not shown to be dishonest; counterclaims dismissed; equitable compensation of HKD 283,780,800 awarded to Excel; shares/proceeds to be transferred to Excel and secured by injunctions addressed accordingly.
2 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. CHONG CHOONG LEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG CHOONG LEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA258/2013

The magistrate's findings that PW1 was honest and credible and that the appellant's account and defence witnesses were not credible, combined with the pattern and content of repeated texts and calls explicitly referring to the upcoming hearing and requesting leniency, established objectively a tendency and the necessary intent to pervert the course of justice; the appellate court found no error in those credibility findings or in applying the objective test and upheld the conviction and the 18‑month sentence as not manifestly excessive.
19 Dec 2012

SALAZAR ALMA F. v. CHAN CHUE KAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

SALAZAR ALMA F. v. CHAN CHUE KAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA21/2012

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed: the leave application was filed out of time with no good cause for the delay; alternatively, even if time were extended, none of the interlocutory orders raised an arguable error of law because the Presiding Officer acted within statutory powers and discretion under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and relevant authorities.
26 Mar 2012

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHI WAI

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR6/2010

The Court denied the review because the trial judge had properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, had the advantage of seeing and hearing evidence and witnesses, and the imposed sentence of six months imprisonment was not manifestly inadequate nor wrong in principle and thus fell within the reasonable range of discretionary sentencing options.
26 Feb 2010

HKSAR v. NWOSU, CHRISTOPER OKECHI

Citation

HKSAR v. NWOSU, CHRISTOPER OKECHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA103/2010

The magistrate's acceptance of PW1's credible, consistent and corroborated evidence established the elements of perverting the course of public justice (via threats) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the appellant was properly found liable under joint enterprise; there was no basis for the court of appeal to disturb those findings, so the appeal is dismissed.