Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accomplice liability

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM SHING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/2016

The Court refused to adopt R v Jogee and held that Hong Kong law continues to recognise the joint criminal enterprise doctrine (basic and extended) alongside traditional accessorial liability; appellant’s murder conviction was upheld because he participated in a basic joint criminal enterprise to inflict grievous bodily harm and also acted as an accessory by encouraging and supporting the perpetrators, making his conviction sustainable regardless of who delivered the fatal act.
31 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. TANG YIP MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG YIP MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/2007

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge impermissibly speculated and made unsupported inferential leaps about joint commission and role allocation (lookout/run) rather than drawing rational inferences from the evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe.
27 Apr 2001

HKSAR v. YIP KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1126/2000

The appellate court held the magistrate reasonably inferred from the appellant's conduct and possession of the note that he knew its contents and was party to a joint enterprise to make an unwarranted demand; differences in elements between blackmail and criminal damage meant the acquittal on criminal damage did not undermine the blackmail conviction, so the conviction was safe and the appeal failed.
9 Nov 1995

R. v. MOK CHUN MUI

Citation

R. v. MOK CHUN MUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC302/1995

The Court dismissed the application because the trial judge's sentence of six years and nine months, imposed for two planned robberies involving a knife and ordered to run concurrently, was not excessive nor wrong in principle given the seriousness of the offences.
1 Nov 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHANG MU HUA AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHANG MU HUA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1172/1988

Where employees merely provide sexual services without exercising control or participating in management they are not guilty of assisting in management under s.139; conversely presence in a managerial role or handling of illicit proceeds supports conviction; sentencing for first offenders must be moderated where no aggravating factors exist, warranting reduction of custodial terms.
6 Oct 1988

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG YUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG YUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA729/1988

Appeal allowed because the magistrate failed to give the necessary accomplice corroboration warning where the evidence established the prostitutes had volunteered in a manner that could render them accomplices; absent corroboration the convictions were unsafe and could not stand.
4 Jun 1987

THE QUEEN v. YAN YUEN YEE

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YAN YUEN YEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC93/1987

The appellate court dismissed leave because the trial judge's acceptance of the prosecution witnesses' evidence and his factual findings that the appellant participated in the robbery were open to him on the evidence, and the two-year sentence was within an appropriate mitigated range for a minor role and clear record.
10 Sept 1985

THE QUEEN v. TONG CHI HO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TONG CHI HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA665/1985

Magistrate's acceptance of prosecution witnesses' evidence together with the appellant's conduct (requests for compensation and acceptance of $30) provided an evidential basis to find knowledge and assistance, and the appellate court will not disturb those factual findings; therefore conviction stands.