27 Mar 2025
香港特別行政區 訴 梁浩智
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 2743
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA309/2022
重審所有證供後，法庭接納控方證人X的眼見證供並認為相片證據顯示視線無阻擋，辯方關於皮膚病需在巴士上伸手入褲騷癢致露出整個下體的解釋不可信；證據足以在毫無合理疑點下證明被告於公眾地方猥褻暴露，因此駁回上訴，維持定罪及判刑。
Hong Kong Case Law
Indecent exposure
9 Aug 2022
香港特別行政區 訴 陳務生
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 2413
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA29/2022
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's credible testimony, supported by CCTV movements consistent with exposure, provided sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant's alternative explanation was unsupported and his silence left the prosecution evidence uncontradicted, so no error of law or fact was shown to justify interference.
5 Sept 1997
HKSAR v. HO WING CHEONG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. HO WING CHEONG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA397/1997
Where deliberate exposure of the private part in a public place is proved, the offence is to be assessed by an objective standard of indecency (whether right-minded persons would regard it as indecent); the defendant's lack of sexual gratification or absence of intent to upset or harass others is immaterial, and common law principles of public decency are not abrogated by the statute absent express provision.
25 Apr 1990
THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWONG WA
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWONG WA
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA399/1990
The magistrate was justified in activating the full four month suspended sentence and ordering it to run consecutively because of the appellant's repeated offending and failure of prior treatment; however the immediate custodial sentence of five months was unduly severe on the facts and was reduced to two months so that the total effective term became six months imprisonment.
22 Sept 1976
LI WAI-MAN v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- LI WAI-MAN v. THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC943/1976
The court reduced each sentence because the original three‑month terms were excessive in light of mitigating facts: the indecent exposure was limited in seriousness (single witness, no threats) and the resisting arrest was brief, caused no injury or damage and occurred while the appellant was under stress with psychiatric features; accordingly the sentences were set at two months and one month respectively, to run consecutively.
13 Mar 1975
CHAN TAK FUNG v. THE QUEEN
- Citation
- CHAN TAK FUNG v. THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC23/1975
Conviction was quashed because the complainant's credibility and conduct, the equivocal testimony of the 10‑year‑old who was affirmed without proper inquiry, and absence of corroboration left a real doubt about the safety of the conviction.