Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

False statement

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2017

香港特別行政區訴陳珠芬

Citation

香港特別行政區訴陳珠芬
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA34/2017

Because the mainland authorities verified the authenticity of the appellant's PRC resident identity card (D2) and birth certificate (D1), the prosecution could not sustain the case that the appellant knowingly made false statements; prosecution withdrew opposition to the appeal and the convictions and sentences were therefore unsafe and were quashed. The court also held the PRC resident identity card was admissible as fresh evidence under the relevant tests.
17 Aug 2010

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1465/2010

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant cannot compel the respondent to rely on specific evidence and Mr Boulton's evidence was inadmissible, rendering the application totally without merit and justifying prohibition of oral reconsideration and an order for costs to the respondent.
16 Nov 2006

HKSAR v. YICK KA LEI

Citation

HKSAR v. YICK KA LEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA392/2006

Appeal allowed: given the period between admission and prosecution and the appellant's conduct since admission, the court suspended the concurrent two-month sentences for two years; fines were lawful but further fines were adjusted to comply with section 82 limits while maintaining a total fine of $160,000; community service was inappropriate and immediate custody remains an established principle for tax evasion but was mitigated by delay.
21 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. TSO KIN CHEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. TSO KIN CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1157/2004

Because the prosecution failed to prove that the false statement (if false) was material to the approving authority's decision and failed to prove the appellant knew it would be so regarded, the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
27 Sept 2002

HKSAR v. LI SEE MING ALVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI SEE MING ALVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1120/2001

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because R v Browning obviated the need for a Turnbull direction for vehicle identification, the magistrate had properly considered the witnesses' opportunity, knowledge and recollection and was entitled to find the appellant had knowingly made a false statement; there was no question of great and general public importance.
30 May 2001

Capital Well Development Ltd. v. Christopher J. Higgins

Citation

Capital Well Development Ltd. v. Christopher J. Higgins
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD715/2001

The Respondent failed to substantiate grounds to set aside the default order: the Applicant's Form 22 statement that rent was unpaid from 1 January 2000 was correct on the evidence; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain s70B and s70C claims because the tenancy falls under Part IV; the Respondent could not demonstrate ability to promptly remedy arrears and the Tribunal declined to exercise discretion to grant further time, therefore the application to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded.
15 Nov 2000

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUK KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG YUK KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA741/2000

The appeal is allowed because the conviction was unsafe for two principal reasons: it was not clear the appellant's statement was false in light of evidence of a prior religious marriage, and there was reasonable doubt whether she knew any purported statement was false, compounded by the Magistrate's factual error about the registry marriage date.
30 Aug 1989

THE QUEEN v. ALAMO CO LTD

Citation

THE QUEEN v. ALAMO CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA438/1989

The court held the magistrate did not impose a manifestly excessive sentence in fining the appellant $50,000 on each of two charges, given the appellant's status as agent and the particular circumstances, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
30 Aug 1989

THE QUEEN v. COLBY & STATION (QUOTAS) LTD

Citation

THE QUEEN v. COLBY & STATION (QUOTAS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA570/1989

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate correctly applied the Marvels guideline in principle, lawfully adjusted the seriousness downward due to absence of international breach, and the $250,000 fine was not manifestly excessive given the value of the goods, the company's size and the demonstrated prejudice to the quota system.
21 Aug 1980

LEE KWONG-LAM v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE KWONG-LAM v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC469/1980

The appeal court held the facts did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required by s.36 to justify withholding a conviction, therefore the conviction was properly recorded; however, because the offence was not serious the fine was reduced from $300 to $100; courts must not withhold convictions to mislead foreign authorities, though likely administrative consequences may be considered in sentencing.