Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wounding (s.19 offences against the person ordinance)

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. KWOK LAN BUN

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK LAN BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA572/2004

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate lawfully and reasonably identified and weighed aggravating factors (use of an improvised weapon, prison setting, seriousness of injury) and applied an appropriate starting point and a one‑third plea reduction; any error would have benefited the appellant and the composite term of 24 months (6 months consecutive to existing 18 months) is not wrong.
16 May 2002

HKSAR v. CHONG MING LOOK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG MING LOOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA408/2002

The magistrate's reasoned acceptance of the complainant and police evidence, including the appellant's voluntary admission to striking the complainant with a brick, provided a proper evidential basis for the conviction; there was no basis to disturb the verdict on appeal.
21 Dec 2001

HKSAR v. HON CHUN KEY

Citation

HKSAR v. HON CHUN KEY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC124/2001

The Court refused leave because the sentencing judge had before him detailed psychiatric reports documenting the applicant's mild mental retardation, psychopathic personality, history of violence including a prior manslaughter, absence of improvement after prolonged treatment, and a high propensity for violence; on that evidence an indefinite Hospital Order under section 45 was the only realistic and appropriate disposition.
21 Nov 2000

HKSAR v. LOK MAN LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LOK MAN LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1074/2000

The magistrate properly evaluated the record of interview and medical evidence and correctly found self‑defence negatived; given the seriousness of the wounding and the appellant's prior violent convictions a custodial sentence of three months was appropriate; a 12‑month driving disqualification was justified by the appellant's breath alcohol concentration being approximately three times the legal limit.
19 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. YU KAM HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YU KAM HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1055/1997

The court dismissed the appeal but increased the effective punishment by ordering a further six weeks to be served in addition to the reduced nine‑month sentence because, notwithstanding acceptance of some mitigation, the nature of the attack and the appellant's violent record justified a term greater than nine months.
15 Aug 1995

R. v. CHEE YAN FAT

Citation

R. v. CHEE YAN FAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC296/1995

The Court held the trial judge adequately and fully directed the jury on the immunised witness's credibility and on accident versus intention/recklessness, the jury appreciated they had to be satisfied the applicant fired the shot, the evidence was sufficient to identify the applicant as the shooter, and therefore the convictions are safe; leave to appeal dismissed.
28 Jun 1973

TSE CHUN HING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TSE CHUN HING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC407/1973

Conviction unsafe because the magistrate, by failing during trial to rule on the admissibility of a defence eyewitness written statement under s.65B (and thereby depriving the defence of the opportunity to cure the defect), combined with an arguably unfortunate articulation of the burden of proof, left the conviction unsupported and entitles quashing of the conviction.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KWOK LAN BUN

HKSAR v. CHONG MING LOOK

HKSAR v. HON CHUN KEY

HKSAR v. LOK MAN LUNG

HKSAR v. YU KAM HUNG

R. v. CHEE YAN FAT

TSE CHUN HING v. THE QUEEN