Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplicity of charges

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2022

DR IP DAVID v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 877
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV279/2020

The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the PIC notices and pre-hearing correspondence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the disciplinary inquiry and, in any event, would not probably have had an important influence on the appeal: the appellant's counsel had accepted at the inquiry that the charge included the alternatives 'without proper care' and 'without investigation' and the Council sentenced on that proven basis. Leave to adduce the documents was therefore refused and costs were ordered.
26 Sept 2012

HKSAR v. CHAN YICK YIU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YICK YIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/2011

The admissions were lawfully admitted; the gifts and cash, although some were given after the applicant left ICBC, were properly inferable as retrospective rewards connected to his acts as an ICBC agent and thus corrupt under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; separate counts for dealing (depositing and concealing proceeds) under s.25 were properly framed because the deposits evidenced additional culpability in concealing proceeds and were not precluded by earlier receipt.
2 Jun 2004

HKSAR v. NG CHUN SING

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUN SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC360/2003

The convictions were safe: the judge's frequent interruptions were excessive but not biased or materially prejudicial; treating PW2 as having relevant experience did not render his opinion inadmissible or material to unfairness; the overall pattern of transactions, fingerprints on betting slips, the raid context and documentary links provided a reasonable and irresistible inference that at least part of the funds derived from bookmaking and that the applicant dealt with proceeds; separate bank accounts justified separate charges; accordingly leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed and…
11 Apr 2002

HKSAR v. LEE NGAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE NGAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA22/2002

Section 56(1) of Cap.374 creates separate offences for causing personal injury and causing damage to property; splitting the charge into two did not cause prejudice given identical evidence and a light penalty, and the magistrate's factual findings were supported by the evidence, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
30 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. CHUI KWOK KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUI KWOK KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC13/1999

The court held that the prosecution proved the three statutory elements (infringing copies, possession, possession for trade/business) beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial judge permissibly inferred the applicant knew the items were VCDs/CDs and had custody or control from circumstantial evidence (visibility of stacks, keys, rucksack contents, repeated visits); accordingly the burden shifted to the applicant to prove lack of knowledge on the balance of probabilities, which he failed to do, and the single combined charge was not duplicious given temporal and spatial proximity; leave to a…
29 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. NG SIU CHAU

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SIU CHAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA617/1998

The magistrate's factual findings at trial — that the seized notes recorded multiple bets at different times, that the accused was advised of his rights, and that the first recorded interview was made freely and voluntarily after a voir dire — were not shown to be wrong or to have caused prejudice; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
19 Aug 1994

LEE CHI-CHIN and Another v. R.

Citation

LEE CHI-CHIN and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC333/1993

Convictions were quashed because the charges were bad for duplicity and the Crown's evidence alleged multiple distinct offences, producing imprecise and prejudicial findings on inducement; the proviso could not be applied where the charges were bad in law and the court could not amend them.
29 Feb 1980

CHENG CHUN WAH v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHENG CHUN WAH v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC143/1980

The first conviction was quashed because the single count impermissibly joined two separate attempted thefts that were distinct in time and circumstance (approximately ten minutes apart), constituting duplicity; the conviction for resisting arrest was upheld because there was sufficient evidence that the arresting officer reasonably suspected the appellant of attempted theft and acted in execution of duty, corroborated by an independent witness.
30 Apr 1970

YAU NAM-YUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YAU NAM-YUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC714/1969

The convictions for uttering forged documents are upheld because there was ample evidence that the appellant handed forged documents to the complainant who believed them to be genuine; the fact that multiple documents were charged separately despite being handed over in one transaction did not invalidate the convictions though it was undesirable; application for leave to appeal dismissed and sentences affirmed to run from date of conviction.