Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Charge framing

  • 1 Mar 2007

    HKSAR v. HO KING LU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HO KING LU
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC62/2006

    Although the statement of offence formally cited s.13(1) and the Chinese text was garbled, it was plain to all parties and the court that the accused was being prosecuted as the licensee under s.13(2); defence counsel did not object, conducted a full defence and the magistrate expressly found the s.13(2) statutory defence was not established; applying Ching Kwok Yin, the drafting errors caused no such injustice as to justify granting leave to appeal, so the application is dismissed.

  • 25 Jun 1996

    R. v. WONG WAI MAN

    Citation
    R. v. WONG WAI MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC395/1995

    The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant made false representations inducing payments and dishonestly appropriated the sums with intent to permanently deprive the owners; charges were properly framed as theft under the principles in R v Gomez and applying the Ghosh test, so the convictions were safe and the leave to appeal was refused.

  • 2 Aug 1985

    THE QUEEN v. LI YUN WING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LI YUN WING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC547/1984

    Convictions under s4(2)(a) could not be sustained because the charges alleged abstention 'in respect of alleged offences' (denoting pre-existing offences) whereas the evidence only showed payments for future protection; applying Attorney General v IP Chiu, the misframing of charges and the insufficiency of evidence to connect payments to existing alleged offences required quashing of those convictions.