Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of particulars

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳朝約

Citation

[2019] HKCA 436
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC8/2017

The appeal is dismissed because the documentary evidence and witness testimony established that the appellant used a company controlled by his wife to divert confirmed quantities of Via Span sold at a higher 'old price' and appropriated the margin; the company would not have authorized such arrangements and the appellant's explanations were implausible and unsupported; accordingly the elements of theft and the dishonesty required by Ghosh were satisfied and the laundering conviction followed; the fraud count failed because the indictment misidentified the victim and could not be fairly amende…
24 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. WONG KA KI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KA KI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC60/2012

The conviction under s120 was quashed because the particularised representation proved (that ejaculation would occur) was not false and the prosecution could not rely on a different, uncharged falsity; failure to amend the particulars deprived the defence of proper cross-examination and was fatal to the prosecution case; the court could not order a retrial under s83E for the alternative offence and thus retrial was refused.
25 Jun 2010

HKSAR v. LAU WAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC177/2009

The trial judge's acceptance of PW1's evidence was properly reached and entitled to deference; on the totality of evidence the only permissible inference was that the applicant arranged and was party to the ATM withdrawals and EPS transactions and therefore was properly convicted as a principal; the defective wording of Charge 2 concerned description of the property and was correctly amended under section 83A CPRO to 'property belonging to another.'
10 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. LO PING KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LO PING KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA372/1997

Conviction unsafe because the particulars expressly alleged the appellant committed the overt act on board the barge while the appellant was not on board and the magistrate's conviction rested on an unsupported positive finding that the appellant gave instructions to export without a manifest; absent evidential support and proper direction on the effect of lies the conviction could not stand and was set aside.
23 Mar 1995

R. v. TANG SHU WAN and Others

Citation

R. v. TANG SHU WAN and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC258/1994

The Court held that the amended particulars to the conspiracy charge were valid and a single conspiracy survived intermittent inactivity; the trial judge properly assessed accomplice evidence and was entitled to comment on failure to give evidence; D4 was rightly convicted on Charges 2, 3 and 4 because evidence established his knowledge and participation; D7's convictions on Charges 2 and 4 were upheld; D5's conviction on Charge 3 failed because the particulars required knowledge of certain co-conspirators which was not proved, but his conviction under Charge 5 was upheld applying the proviso…
26 Nov 1986

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FUNG SI-TSOU

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FUNG SI-TSOU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC306/1986

The Court upheld the trial judge's discretionary refusals to allow the late amendments and to recall PW3 (not manifestly unreasonable), found that although the judge failed to make an express finding disposing of the statutory presumption the evidence demonstrated the presumption would have been rebutted and acquittal would stand, and held that the conviction under section 3 was time‑barred by section 31A and therefore could not stand and must be quashed.
26 Nov 1986

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FUNG SI-TSOU

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. FUNG SI-TSOU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC401/1986

The Court held the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing the Crown's late amendments to the particulars and in refusing to recall PW3, and although the judge misdirected himself by not expressly disposing of the s25 statutory presumption, the evidence demonstrated the presumption would have been rebutted and the acquittal on the charged purposes was justified; separately, a conviction substituted under s32 for an offence time-barred by s31A cannot stand and the s3 conviction was quashed.
25 Apr 1980

CHING POON KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHING POON KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC267/1980

The conviction in NK12686 was quashed because the Particulars charged an attempt to steal the handbag itself whereas the evidence established an attempt to steal from inside the handbag and the information could not be amended after conviction; the conviction in NK20043 was upheld because the appellant suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the same magistrate hearing the two matters, given his consent and the strength and clarity of the identification evidence.
23 Jul 1971

POON LEUNG ALIAS POON WAN AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

POON LEUNG ALIAS POON WAN AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/1971

Appellate review must quash burglary convictions where evidence does not permit inference of intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (first and third appellants); where evidence supports intent an amended charge to 'attempted grievous bodily harm' is permissible and conviction may stand (fourth appellant); sentencing must be adjusted in light of offending facts, prior record relevance, first‑offender status and time in custody; burglary as charged barred suspended sentence under s109B.