Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duress defence

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. CAMARA KANDJA

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1050
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/2021

Because inconsistent translated documents and the applicant's limited English and procedural understanding created real confusion as to what was being abandoned, the purported Form VII abandonment of the sentence appeal was not the result of a deliberate and informed decision and must be treated as a nullity; accordingly the Court could entertain the sentence appeal and, applying the revised Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines and proper assessment of role and culpability, reduced the sentence to 20.5 years' imprisonment.
24 Nov 2022

DM v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL460/2022

The judicial review was dismissed as an abuse of process and for delay: the threshold issue of whether there was a credible suspicion that the applicant was a victim of trafficking/forced labour had been fully considered and rejected by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal; permitting a fresh VIS now would amount to a collateral attack on those final decisions, would risk undermining the safety of the conviction, and no special circumstances existed to disapply abuse of process; the application was also not promptly brought and no adequate explanation justified extension of time.
25 Mar 2020

HKSAR v. GUTIERREZ ALVAREZ KEISHU MERCEDES

Citation

[2020] HKCA 184
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC320/2016

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the absence of a separate dockside recording did not violate the right to a fair trial and the applicant failed to demonstrate specific mistranslation or material prejudice from the interpretation provided; (2) the judge’s credibility findings that duress was not established were supported by the evidence and there was no duty to stay proceedings absent a credible suspicion requiring further investigation; (3) complaints about counsel’s conduct were tactical and did not amount to flagrant incompetence; and (4) the sentence was within applicable guidelines…
13 May 2011

HKSAR v. RAZAQ NADEEN

Citation

HKSAR v. RAZAQ NADEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC261/2009

The deposition obtained in Macau should not have been admitted because the prosecution failed to place any evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to secure the witness's attendance in Hong Kong, a statutory precondition under the Evidence Ordinance; however, the erroneous admission caused no miscarriage of justice given the totality of evidence (confessions, DNA, exhibits, video interview) and the appeal is dismissed under the proviso.
14 May 2010

HKSAR v. MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA

Citation

HKSAR v. MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC188/2009

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the judge's starting point of 20 years was consistent with authority and that adding one year to reflect the international/importation element was justified; personal, family and health grounds did not warrant reduction for such a grave trafficking offence.
13 Dec 2002

HKSAR v. KWOK SIN MAN, BEATRICE

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK SIN MAN, BEATRICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC333/2002

The jury were correctly and fairly directed on both knowledge and duress, the issues were factual for the jury, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had knowledge and was not acting under duress, and the sentence of five years (within accepted sentencing principles and reduced for mitigation) was not inappropriate; therefore appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
3 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. SUSAN-JANE NEAL

Citation

HKSAR v. SUSAN-JANE NEAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1084/2001

The magistrate's credibility findings and evaluation of evidence were within permissible bounds: considering relative vehicle power was a legitimate factor, mirror damage was equivocal and did not compel acceptance of the appellant's account, the appellant's version that PW1 dangerously overtook in opposing traffic was implausible, and duress did not arise because the pursuit occurred after she had already driven off; accordingly the convictions for careless driving and failing to stop are safe and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Oct 1994

MA LAP SUN alias MA LEE SHING and Others v. R.

Citation

MA LAP SUN alias MA LEE SHING and Others v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC678/1993

The court found the trial summing-up fair and no bias existed, refused leave to appeal against conviction, and held the sentences (20 years for 1st and 3rd applicants; 22 years for 2nd applicant) were not manifestly excessive given the armed robbery involving firearms, grenades and a running gun battle; the court declined to increase the 2nd applicant's sentence under s.831(3)(b) but noted it could have been higher had he been represented.
10 Nov 1993

HO TING WAI v. R.

Citation

HO TING WAI v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC2/1993

The Court held that the sentencing judge had given a sufficient discount for the applicant's subordinate role and that, having regard to the scale of the operation and quantities involved, the sentences were not manifestly excessive; the appeal was dismissed.
6 Aug 1981

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHENG CHI-MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHENG CHI-MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR2/1981

The Court refused the Attorney General's review application because the sentences (four years for the owner and three years for the crewman) were not shown to be manifestly inadequate or outside the bounds of proper judicial discretion given the factual differences from more aggravated precedents; therefore no interference was warranted.