Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 梁建邦

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA163/2025

The appeal is dismissed because on full re-examination of the evidence the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution proved the offence: CCTV was inconclusive and did not displace the complainant’s stable account of being rubbed for about 30 seconds by an erect penis; the trial judge lawfully and reasonably assessed credibility and reliability; remand for psychiatric reports was within judicial discretion and for legitimate sentencing purposes; the custodial sentence of 2 months and activation of the prior 2-month suspended term were proportionate given the offence and prior…

Source excerpt

• Indecent/obscene assault
• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal against sentence
• Witness credibility
• Cctv evidence
• Activation of suspended sentence

Read case analysis

香港鐵路有限公司 訴 吳兆有

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA133/2025

經重審全部證據後，法庭確信控方已在毫無合理疑點下證明三項附例罪行，裁判官的事實評價並無不當，且合計罰款HK$4,000在本案情況下並不屬明顯過重，因此駁回上訴，維持定罪及判處。

Source excerpt

• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal against sentence
• Failure to comply with staff instructions
• Carrying prohibited luggage
• Refusal to provide personal particulars
• Rehearing standard on appeal

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 成柏傑（又名李杰明）及另一人

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC72/2025

The trial judge's credibility findings and identification of D3 from CCTV/audio and PW1 evidence were reasonable and sufficient to establish joint enterprise liability beyond reasonable doubt; the attack was retaliatory not self‑defence; psychiatric evidence supported an indeterminate hospital order for D1; the sentences imposed, including D3's as instigator, were within appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.

Source excerpt

• Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
• Joint enterprise/party liability
• Identification from cctv and audio
• Self-defence
• Indeterminate hospital order
• Appeal against conviction

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 孫偉力

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA348/2024

上訴人之認罪在庭上為自願且明確，裁判官已就自用情況作出確認；就量刑而言，罰款HK$1,000元對首次違法者已屬適當且不屬明顯過重；法院亦無權為達致不留案底而改判，因此上訴人關於定罪及判刑之上訴均應被駁回。

Source excerpt

• Possession of dangerous drugs
• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal against sentence
• Record of conviction

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. CHOI WING KA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC222/2023

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against conviction in a cocaine trafficking case, but granted leave out of time to appeal sentence after newer sentencing guidance lowered the starting point.

• Drug trafficking
• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal against sentence
• Cctv evidence
• Admissibility of statements
• Sentencing guidelines

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. RAJESH, NARAIN PARMAR

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA505/2024

On rehearing, the court upheld the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and confirmed the 6-week sentence as not wrong in principle or excessive.

• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal against sentence
• Evaluation of witness credibility
• Rehearing standard
• Assault-occasioning-actual-bodily-harm

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. LAM TSZ HIM AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC87/2024

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against conviction for D2 and D4 in an insurance-fraud conspiracy case, but granted leave to appeal against sentence.

• Conspiracy to defraud
• Dishonesty
• Sentencing
• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal against sentence
• Ghosh test

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 陸志榮

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA407/2024

The magistrate properly considered the appellant's guilty plea, lack of prior convictions and personal mitigation including health and financial circumstances; the $200 fine (after one‑third discount from a $300 benchmark) was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and therefore the appeal is dismissed; the fresh medical records were unnecessary as the sentencing court had been aware of the relevant circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Failure to comply with traffic signal
• Appeal against sentence
• Mitigation and admission of fresh evidence

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 何玉清

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA335/2023

Although the appeal succeeded in reducing the monetary penalty, the court exercised its discretion under Cap 492 s.8(b) and refused to award costs because the appellant (through his counsel at the review) failed to place his financial circumstances before the magistrate, making the appeal avoidable and disentitling him to costs in the circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Appeal against sentence
• Legal costs
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 廖漢英

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA158/2023

The licence had ceased to be effective from 7 May 2021 by virtue of the company notification and failure to file a renewal within the 45‑day statutory period; the admitted facts and documentary evidence established operation of money service without a licence contrary to Cap.615 s29; the second appellant's admissions were voluntary and sufficient to support conviction; the sentences (HK$3,000 per charge) were within a permissive and appropriately deterrent range given the scale, statutory purpose and mitigation; therefore convictions and sentences were upheld and fresh evidence rejected.

Source excerpt

• Unlicensed money service operation
• Appeal against sentence
• Appeal against conviction after guilty plea
• Licence renewal requirements
• Admission of fresh evidence on appeal

Read case analysis