Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Immunity
  • 11 Feb 2025

    HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 138
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC216/2023

    Leave to appeal was granted only on Ground 2 because the alibi directions risked creating a reasonably arguable circularity between Lam's identification and the falsity of the alibi; all other grounds (alleged imbalance in summing-up, hearsay of triad-status evidence, and general safety) were found not reasonably arguable and refused.

  • 21 Jul 2017

    KOO MING KOWN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

    Citation
    KOO MING KOWN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2599/2016

    The statement of claim disclosed no private law cause of action against the SFC because it sought to compel exercise of a statutory power and to enforce general public functions under s5(1) rather than assert any private legal right; such relief is exclusively public law in nature and must be pursued by judicial review/mandamus under Order 53 and s21K, and the claim is also barred by statutory immunity and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly the statement of claim must be struck out and the action dismissed.

  • 5 Feb 2004

    HKSAR v. KWAN WAI-HOU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. KWAN WAI-HOU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC396/2003

    Assistance that relates to offences other than the one to which the defendant pleaded guilty, where the defendant was a willing participant and sought to defeat detection, does not justify further discount beyond immunity granted; the sentence imposed (six years six months) was proper given the applicant's record and circumstances.

  • 9 Jun 1980

    CHOI CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    CHOI CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1048/1979

    The trial judge did not err in admitting the accomplice's earlier cautioned statement because the cross-examination, in the factual context of immunity and inconsistent prior accounts, sufficiently impugned credibility as recent fabrication and the prior statement was substantially similar and rationally tended to answer the attack; the inadvertent jury awareness of an excluded statement of the 3rd appellant was an error rendered harmless by timely and effective judicial direction; and the summing-up, read as a whole, adequately instructed the jury on corroboration, misdirections were not pre…