Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guilty plea nullity

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2015

HKSAR v. MEIJNE, CAMILO ARTURO

Citation

HKSAR v. MEIJNE, CAMILO ARTURO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA274/2012

The appellant's guilty plea was rendered a nullity because, given his diagnosed bipolar disorder, fluctuating mental state, contemporaneous confusion at the plea hearing and reliance on psychiatric reports warning of instability, the plea was not a voluntary, deliberate and informed act; further, the admitted facts were not supported by the evidence (CCTV showed minimal contact and a non‑aggressive gesture), therefore conviction and sentence were quashed.
19 Feb 2014

HKSAR v. HOOD RICHARD TAYLOR

Citation

HKSAR v. HOOD RICHARD TAYLOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA285/2013

The Amended Brief Facts admitted by the Appellant did not include the essential element that the request was made by a police officer in uniform and did not clearly establish that the statutory warning was given; therefore the facts admitted did not support the charge and the guilty plea was a nullity. The conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside and the matter remitted for retrial before another magistrate.
16 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. SHAHID

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAHID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA168/2013

Charge 1 was defective as pleaded at arraignment because it omitted the essential mens rea element of intending to induce belief, so the guilty plea to that defective charge was a nullity; Charge 2 was mistranslated such that the element of inducing belief was not put and the standard of interpretation fell below constitutional requirements, rendering that plea a nullity; consequently both convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
16 Dec 2011

HKSAR v. CHOI YIU WAI DAVID

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI YIU WAI DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA459/2011

The additional credible medical evidence established that the appellant's obsessive and delusional disorder, compounded by omission of medication and extreme anxiety, materially impaired his reasoning and understanding at the time of plea so that the plea was involuntary and not his true act; therefore the conviction, fine and compensation order were quashed and the matter remitted to the magistracy for plea.
4 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUNG WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1045/2003

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to establish that his guilty plea of 25 June 2003 was a nullity; there was no evidence the plea was involuntary, induced by misrepresentation or fraud, or not a deliberate and informed decision, and the probation officer contact and reports post‑dated the plea.
6 Dec 2001

HKSAR v. LI SHU MAU

Citation

HKSAR v. LI SHU MAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA896/2001

Appellate court found the admitted facts did not establish corrupt intent by the appellant for charge 1 and were equivocal for charge 13 because it was unclear whether the newspapers were company property or had become passenger property/abandoned; therefore both guilty pleas were nullities, convictions could not stand and must be quashed and the matter remitted for trial before another magistrate.
22 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. PROSPEROUS PERSONNEL AGENCY & PUBLIC RELATIONS CO.

Citation

HKSAR v. PROSPEROUS PERSONNEL AGENCY & PUBLIC RELATIONS CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA57/2001

Because the factual admissions were equivocal as to whether the $200 payments were made by the job‑seekers themselves or by third persons (their mothers), the pleas were nullities and did not constitute valid guilty pleas; accordingly the convictions were quashed, fines remitted and the matter remitted for retrial.
31 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. WONG CHI YUK

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI YUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA381/1999

The guilty plea was not a nullity: the admitted facts included a confession to sneaking into Hong Kong and the appellant's allegations of duress and mistake were found not credible; misunderstanding of law is insufficient to vitiate a plea unless the admitted facts do not disclose the offence or the charge is defective; consequently the court lacked jurisdiction under s113(1) to entertain the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.