Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accident defence

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴孫成威

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA184/2024

On rehearing the High Court found the combined testimony of PW1 and independent observer PW2, supported by contemporaneous video, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally contacted PW1's right buttock with his genital area on three occasions; the contacts were not accidental given available space, the appellant's repeated approach and body posture, and absence of evidence of sudden train movement; the magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable and the conviction and 21‑day sentence were upheld.
8 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區訴伍汶康

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA311/2018

The trial judge reasonably accepted the complainant's account that she was struck from behind and had her left breast grabbed for about one second, found the act intentional and non‑consensual, properly explained why minor inconsistencies did not undermine credibility, and correctly rejected the accident defence; there was no basis for appellate intervention, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.
25 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. SINGH MANJIT

Citation

HKSAR v. SINGH MANJIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA659/2015

The magistrate's findings on identity and credibility were not plainly wrong: the appellant had, in records of interview, admitted facts supporting identification; the magistrate properly assessed inconsistencies and rejected the claim of accident; full weight was rightly given to inculpatory admissions and none to untested exculpatory parts; consequently the prosecution proved all elements of indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Aug 2007

HKSAR v. KWOK KA MING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK KA MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC75/2006

The judge's summing-up, read as a whole, gave sufficient and accurate directions on murder, manslaughter, joint enterprise, and burden and standard of proof; the accidental-infliction/manslaughter scenario was either adequately presented or not substantive on the evidence; D1's conviction for murder was safe and therefore D2-D4's convictions and D4's mandatory life sentence were upheld; leave to appeal was granted but all appeals were dismissed applying the proviso where appropriate.
21 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. TSOI CHI MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TSOI CHI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA642/2006

Conviction upheld because the evidence established the appellant deliberately picked up and used scissors in an aggressive manner towards the officer while the officer was executing his duty; injury is not an element of assault and the alleged possibility of accident was implausible in view of the conduct and credible eyewitness evidence, so the magistrate's credibility findings were not vitiated.
30 Jul 1998

HKSAR v. NG WAI FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. NG WAI FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA74/1998

The magistrate's acceptance of the victim's evidence and rejection of the appellant's accident defence, having seen and heard witnesses, was entitled to deference; indecency is established from the circumstances once accident is rejected, so the appeal must be dismissed.
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.
18 Jun 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC39/1985

The conviction was upheld because the evidence supported the finding that the shooting was intentional or within the common design and the trial judge correctly and sufficiently directed the jury on accident and common design; the change of plea did not render the trial unfair.