Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Child abuse

  • 19 Jun 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 Y.P.Y

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2539
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA373/2023

    On retrial the court found the magistrate did not err in crediting the complainant and rejecting the appellant; the prosecution established the appellant intentionally abused the child and caused identifiable bruising, proof beyond reasonable doubt was met; the four‑month immediate custodial sentence was within permissible range given the child's vulnerability, injury and need for deterrence and protection, therefore conviction and sentence are upheld.

  • 23 Oct 2019

    李 對 王

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 243
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11599/2018

    Photographic evidence and the respondent's admission that he was the man in the photographs showing public intimate conduct established conduct beyond ordinary friendship; from the wife's perspective and applying the Livingstone‑Stallard test the respondent's conduct was unreasonable and made it impossible to expect the wife to live with him; other allegations (financial arrangements, parenting disputes) were not proved to the requisite standard to found the petition; accordingly the marriage was irretrievably broken and a decree nisi was granted.

  • 22 Dec 2017

    香港特別行政區 訴 李錦志

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 李錦志
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA682/2016

    Trial judge properly accepted the child and mother as credible; prosecution proved all elements of the four offences beyond reasonable doubt; the sentences imposed (3,3,6,2 months with partial concurrency producing total 9 months) were proportionate and within discretion; appeal dismissed.

  • 13 Dec 1996

    R. v. CHAN HON SANG

    Citation
    R. v. CHAN HON SANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC248/1996

    The court held Exhibit P7 was voluntary and admissible despite the unexplained 12-minute gap because there was no evidence of inducement or impropriety; the trial judge was entitled to accept PW3's credibility and to rely on the clear admissions in P7; the sentences (12 months and 24 months consecutive, total 36 months) were within the sentencing judge's discretion and not so excessive as to warrant interference; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

  • 13 May 1983

    THE QUEEN v. CHAU MING CHEONG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAU MING CHEONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1011/1982

    Because the applicant's role was passive and his lesser culpability combined with substantial family welfare considerations (care of infants, grandparents' hardship) justified a materially reduced custodial term; therefore the original seven-year sentence was excessive and was substituted with three years.