Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case stated appeal

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

律政司司長訴王若詩NIGEL

Citation

[2026] HKCA 865
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2024

The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal: the trial judge erred by fragmenting and undervaluing the cumulative effect of the visual evidence, apparel/equipment and conduct; applying the clarified authorities, the totality of the evidence provided the only reasonable inference that the respondent participated in the unlawful assembly and that he was present wearing a face covering; the acquittals on counts 1 (unlawful assembly) and 9 (use of face covering in an unlawful assembly) were therefore set aside and the matter remitted for the trial to resume before the trial judge.
30 Oct 2025

HKSAR v. IP, ANTHONY CHUN HIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5043
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA198/2023

The court held the magistrate lawfully amended the charges and, on rehearing, the evidence established the appellant disclosed personal data with requisite intention and caused specified harm; further the magistrate erred in construing s64(6)(c) to require two layers of harm — s64(6)(c) requires only that the disclosure caused the data subject reasonably to be concerned for safety or well‑being — and accordingly the appellant is to be convicted on Charge 1 under s64(3C) PDPO (not the lesser s64(3A)) and the convictions are affirmed and remitted to the magistrate for conviction entry and sente…
23 Sept 2025

律政司司長訴何永恒

Citation

[2025] HKCA 801
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC123/2024

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly found the CCTV exhibits authentic and sufficient to support conviction for count 2 after assessing working copies, original media and screenshots; the judge properly exercised discretion to exclude parts of the recorded interviews where there was a real risk of unfairness given the defendant's apparent wish to remain silent. However, the trial judge failed to adequately analyse the CCTV evidence on counts 3 and 4 and thus the acquittals were unsafe; the acquittals were set aside and those counts were remitted for trial before another Dis…
12 Dec 2024

律政司司長訴牛奶有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA88/2024

Magistrate did not err in law or reach a conclusion no reasonable magistrate could reach. Point‑of‑sale displays, even if conspicuous (colours, lighting, bespoke holders, pack arrangements), are not automatically "tobacco advertisements" under Cap.371; prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the displays were promotional in the statutory sense rather than sales displays. Where s.14(1)(c) might be engaged, s.14(1A) (anti-smoking purpose) can negate classification as tobacco advertisement in the circumstances; the acquittals are therefore upheld.
19 Apr 2010

HKSAR v. CHU KING KWOK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU KING KWOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA855/2009

The court held that when assessing whether misconduct in public office is 'serious' the likely consequences of the breach must be taken into account in the context of the responsibilities of the office, the public objects served and the nature and extent of the departure; the magistrate had failed to accord proper weight to those consequences in relation to the respondent's large‑scale, prolonged and exposed copying of taxpayers' personal data and accordingly the questions of law were answered in the affirmative.
13 Mar 2008

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. OCEAN TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. OCEAN TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA70/2008

Costs were ordered to follow the event and be awarded to the defendants in any event, including the entirety of the interlocutory proceedings before Fung J and Hartmann J; immediate payment was declined as inappropriate; a certificate for two counsel only was granted for the 1st defendant because three counsel was not justified on the facts and complexity of the case.
6 Feb 2008

HKSAR v. SUNAN INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SUNAN INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA939/2007

No properly directed juror, giving a Hong Kong shopper a moment's thought, could conclude on the evidence that the label 'Daniel Hechter, Paris' would be taken as indicating the place of manufacture; it denotes the fashion house/design/quality control and, given modern globalised manufacturing, would not reasonably be taken as indicating manufacture in Paris or France, so there was no case to answer and the magistrate's dismissal was upheld.
17 Jul 2007

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YAU YUK LUNG ZIGO AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YAU YUK LUNG ZIGO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC12/2006

Section 118F(1) criminalises only homosexual buggery committed otherwise than in private and thereby draws a dividing line based on sexual orientation; the government failed to demonstrate any genuine need for that differential treatment so the provision fails the first limb of the justification test and is unconstitutional; procedurally, magistrates must consider section 27 (amendment/substitution) and a magistrate's final ruling of unconstitutionality is appealable by case stated; in this appeal the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered costs to the 2nd respondent.
20 Jun 2006

BARING SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

BARING SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV202/2005

The Court allowed the Commissioner's appeal because the trial judge impermissibly substituted his own fact-finding for the Board of Review; given the Board's findings it was open and reasonable for the Board to conclude the Taxpayer had not discharged the burden of proving an offshore source for the disputed profits, and the Board's conclusion was not perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
29 Mar 2006

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA11/2005

The Board's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and documentation; on the facts found Mr Lee did not discharge the onus of proving he was carrying on a trade in securities and futures. The inference that he was an enthusiastic investor rather than a trader was open on the primary facts (transaction frequency and holding periods, late business registration, inconsistent use and disclosure of YST, absence of audited accounts and adverse credibility findings). The Court therefore upheld the Board's decision and dismissed the appeal.