Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Claim of right

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2022

香港特別行政區訴梁瑄凌

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3519
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA323/2021

Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because, although the judge accepted the appellant made false representations and accepted she knew HR's clawback practice, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that those representations induced HR to pay the commissions — material evidential gaps remained (notably as to the timing of cheque issue and whether the decision‑maker knew the true facts), so the causation/inducement element of s16A was not established.
17 Jun 2008

LIM HAU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

LIM HAU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC18/2008

Leave to appeal refused. The trial judge's directions were adequate: a Ghosh direction properly addressed dishonesty and a claim of right reference was unnecessary and potentially confusing; the jury was correctly directed that intent to cause economic loss was required and the circumstances evidenced economic detriment to all persons interested in the stakeholders' accounts; a Brown direction was unnecessary; and the 2nd applicant's sentence did not amount to substantial and grave injustice.
17 Jun 2008

LIM HAU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

LIM HAU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC17/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's directions, including a Ghosh direction on dishonesty and directions as to intent to cause economic loss, were adequate; the claim of right did not require additional direction; a Brown direction was unnecessary as the charge and evidence indicated detriment to all interested persons; there was no basis to displace Ghosh with Peters; and the 2nd applicant's sentence did not involve substantial and grave injustice.
8 May 2008

HKSAR v. TAI CHI WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TAI CHI WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC497/2006

Applications dismissed because the points raised were either matters of settled law or were fact‑specific and dependent on trial evidence and therefore not of great and general importance; the 2nd applicant additionally failed to justify leave out of time.
28 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. HUI PO YUEN MAKIE

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI PO YUEN MAKIE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC319/2000

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the jury expressly rejected the applicant's claimed honest belief under s.3(1) after accepting compelling evidence of misappropriation and falsification; therefore any contention that the Ghosh direction undermined the statutory subjective test was immaterial in the facts and did not cause prejudice.
3 Jan 1997

R. v. CHAN YICK CHUNG

Citation

R. v. CHAN YICK CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1162/1996

On the accepted evidence that the appellant donned a price-tagged jacket and left the shop without paying and without evidence of an honest belief in a right to do so, the magistrate was entitled to infer dishonesty and convict for theft; the asserted part-exchange was not shown and minor identification error did not undermine conviction.
23 Apr 1992

R. v. WAI WING-SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

R. v. WAI WING-SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC276/1990

Failure to give a Broadhurst direction on the proper use of proven lies was fundamental and rendered the convictions unsafe; additionally the judge's contradictory invitation to compare a defendant's out-of-court remark with the co-accused's confession likely prejudiced the second applicant. The recall of a hostile witness following arrest for perjury was within judicial discretion and lawful, and the recent possession direction was permissible, but the combined errors required quashing convictions and ordering retrial.
22 Aug 1984

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WING-MING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WING-MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/1984

Because the evidence raised a bona fide claim of right the trial judge was obliged to consider it notwithstanding defence counsel's concession; his failure to do so rendered the robbery convictions unsafe and required quashing and a new trial. Separately, the judge mischaracterised the alibi witness's reason to recall events for the 3rd defendant, undermining that verdict and requiring its reversal and retrial.
17 Feb 1984

THE QUEEN v. MOK HING WO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOK HING WO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1029/1983

Where, on appeal, material doubts exist about the safety of a conviction — including evidence that the complainant may be a confidence trickster and evidence supporting a legitimate claim of right by the defendant — the conviction is unsafe and must be quashed and the sentence set aside.