Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Execution of duty

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2006

HKSAR v. TSOI CHI MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TSOI CHI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA642/2006

Conviction upheld because the evidence established the appellant deliberately picked up and used scissors in an aggressive manner towards the officer while the officer was executing his duty; injury is not an element of assault and the alleged possibility of accident was implausible in view of the conduct and credible eyewitness evidence, so the magistrate's credibility findings were not vitiated.
27 Jul 1994

R. v. SIU YAU KIN

Citation

R. v. SIU YAU KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA206/1994

Given the magistrate's finding that the officer believed the appellant matched the description of the culprit and that the appellant gave evasive answers, it was open to the magistrate to conclude the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect guilt under s.50(1)(a); therefore the arrest was lawful and the officer was acting in the execution of his duty, so the convictions were upheld.
28 Feb 1991

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HO KWONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HO KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1424/1990

The appeal was allowed because there was genuine doubt whether the constable was acting in execution of his duty when the assault occurred; under s.63 assault is punishable only if the officer is executing his duty, and established authorities require acquittal where that element is lacking, rendering the verdict unsafe and requiring the conviction and sentence to be quashed and set aside.
13 Jan 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHUN WO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHUN WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1650/1988

The objective test for reasonable suspicion requires that there be evidence before the magistrate showing reasonable grounds; reliance on an undisclosed cautioned statement not produced at trial meant the magistrate could not objectively conclude that Inspector Kwok had reasonable grounds to arrest, so the inspector was not acting in the execution of his duty and the conviction for assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty could not stand.
24 Mar 1986

THE QUEEN v. MOK KAM WING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOK KAM WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA130/1986

Conviction set aside because there was no evidence that the officers had the required suspicion or were acting in the execution of their duty under s.54 Police Force Ordinance when they stopped or threatened to arrest the appellant; therefore the element of 'in the execution of his duty' was not proved.
8 Aug 1985

THE QUEEN v. WU HING KAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WU HING KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA548/1985

The magistrate misdirected himself by treating the officer's actions as in the execution of his duty; because the officer entered private premises without a warrant and was therefore a trespasser, the essential element 'in the execution of his duty' was not proven and the conviction could not stand.
25 Jul 1980

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KONG CHUNG-SHING

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KONG CHUNG-SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC261/1980

On the facts set out in the Case Stated there was insufficient evidence to show the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the respondent of possession of dangerous drugs and therefore the arrest and taking into custody was not lawful; although an officer can stop and search under s.54 on subjective suspicion, an arrest required reasonable suspicion under s.50(1) (or justification under s.52 for drug offences) and that threshold was not met here.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TSOI CHI MAN

R. v. SIU YAU KIN

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG HO KWONG

THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHUN WO

THE QUEEN v. MOK KAM WING

THE QUEEN v. WU HING KAI

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KONG CHUNG-SHING