Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplication of charges

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC219/2005

Verdicts were upheld because there was a rational factual basis for differing findings: jury could be sure D2 knew of firearms (visible; admissions) but not sure he knew of concealed grenades; identification and supporting forensic evidence made D1's conviction for using a firearm a matter for the jury and not susceptible to no-case challenge; separate counts under Cap.238 and Cap.200 were lawfully open because possession of different items can constitute separate acts and s.58 does not render the indictment duplicitous; sentencing on Counts 4 and 5 should not have been made partially consecu…
30 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. NG CHUN KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC295/2005

Verdicts were not inconsistent because a reasonable jury could infer knowledge of firearms from admissions and visibility while not being sure of concealed grenades; separate counts under Cap.238 and Cap.200 were lawful because possession of distinct items in the same container can amount to separate acts of possession and s58 does not bar charging both where distinct acts/items are alleged; identification evidence was for the jury and was properly directed under Turnbull; sentencing error required correction because consecutive treatment produced totals exceeding the statutory maximum so the…
21 May 2002

HKSAR v. YAU CHIU MING

Citation

HKSAR v. YAU CHIU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA300/2002

The magistrate's factual findings rejecting the appellant's return‑call/prankster defence and that the calls were made without reasonable cause were safe, but the evidence in fact established two distinct periods of persistent calling separated by a 17‑day cessation, meaning the charge as particularised (single continuing offence from 1 May to 18 June 2001) was substantively defective; the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for trial before another magistrate on an amended charge particularising one continuous period (1 June 2001 to 18 June 2001).
31 Oct 2001

DR HUI YAT MING v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

DR HUI YAT MING v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV418/2001

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Medical Council's finding of professional misconduct and the 12-month removal: the particulars were not duplicitous, procedural complaints (including late sitting and alleged denial of reply) did not cause unfairness given counsel's acquiescence, the standard of proof applied was appropriate to the gravity of the allegations, and overwhelming evidence supported findings that the appellant knowingly prescribed and allowed supply of Dexamethasone, failed to inform or monitor the patient and made dishonest, misleading entries in the medical record.
18 May 1977

POON SIU-YING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

POON SIU-YING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC461/1977

The offences arose from a single continuing course of conduct where the forgery and uttering were means to obtain goods; the magistrate's aggregation produced an excessive total and the appropriate overall sentence is 15 months' imprisonment achieved by making the theft sentences concurrent and minimal concurrency for forging and uttering, thereby avoiding duplicative punishment.
12 Feb 1973

LAM SAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAM SAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC894/1972

Although the individual sentences imposed were not inappropriate and the substantive offence could attract a higher sentence, because both charges arose from the same incident the correct order is that the terms run concurrently; ordering them consecutive produced impermissible cumulative punishment and was set aside.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KWAI PING HUNG

HKSAR v. NG CHUN KEUNG

HKSAR v. YAU CHIU MING

DR HUI YAT MING v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

POON SIU-YING v. THE QUEEN

LAM SAN v. THE QUEEN