Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Intention

  • 18 Sept 2023

    香港特別行政區 訴 鄧家樂及另一人

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1210
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC113/2021

    The court convicted both D18 and D23 because, on the totality of admissible evidence and agreed facts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each engaged in conduct that promoted or assisted the riot and had the requisite intent: D18 was dressed, equipped and fled with demonstrators before being subdued; D23 deliberately collided with an officer to free a detained protester and fled with others. The defendants' clothing, behaviour, location and reactions to police action permitted an inference of participation and intent.

  • 23 Jul 2013

    HKSAR v. TSANG HING LUN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSANG HING LUN
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC61/2012

    On the facts the applicants' conduct was inherently indecent and, in the absence of any acceptable explanation, the requisite intent to assault in an indecent manner was an irresistible inference; therefore magistrates were not required to make an express finding of intended indecency and there was no arguable grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, so leave to appeal was refused.

  • 9 Oct 2012

    HKSAR v. MA KWOK FAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MA KWOK FAI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC404/2011

    On the facts the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the applicant's intent in relation to the punch separately from the subsequent kicks; the murder conviction was unsafe and was quashed and substituted with manslaughter; the case is fact‑sensitive and does not raise a point of law of great and general importance, so the application for certification under s.32(2) was refused.

  • 4 Jun 2007

    ZOU YISHANG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

    Citation
    ZOU YISHANG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC21/2007

    The Court held there was no reasonable ground for appeal because the applicant's complaint that the virtual certainty test from Nedrick/Woollin was misapplied by the lower courts was not reasonably arguable; citing authorities from murder cases to explain intention in other offences is permissible and did not justify granting leave, therefore leave to appeal was refused.

  • 8 Mar 2007

    HKSAR v. FUNG PAK CHEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. FUNG PAK CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC105/2006

    Given the inconsistency between the applicant's account and the pathological evidence, the lies direction was necessary and was properly and adequately given; a flight direction was unnecessary because the accused admitted the unlawful killing and the only contested issue was intent; the summing up fairly presented the defence; therefore the conviction was not unsafe.

  • 20 Aug 2004

    HKSAR v. SIU MAN KIT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SIU MAN KIT
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1128/2003

    On the evidence the magistrate was entitled to infer that the appellant's words amounted to an offer of $30,000 for the benefit of the supervising engineer; the appellant's admissions in the videotaped interview established intention that the sum be paid as a reward or to secure extra favours, satisfying s2(2)(a) and the inducement element of s9; thus conviction was upheld; on sentence the court reduced the custodial term from seven months to nine weeks taking a lower starting point reflecting the single unaccepted offer, no payment, lesser gravity than comparable multi-count corruption cases…

  • 8 Jun 2001

    HKSAR v. YIK CHUNG WING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIK CHUNG WING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC528/2000

    The Court dismissed the leave to appeal because the summing-up fairly and clearly directed the jury on the requisite intent, the evidence (forensic matches, pathologist conclusion of manual strangulation and applicant's own statements) supported the jury's conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, and the alleged mistranslation did not undermine the fairness of the trial or the safety of the verdict; consequently the conviction and mandatory life sentence stand.

  • 3 Apr 1997

    R v. WONG TAT CHUEN

    Citation
    R v. WONG TAT CHUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC509/1996

    Appeal dismissed: the evidence that an accomplice's blows were a substantial cause of death was tenuous and unsupported; the applicant's own blows were established and constituted a significant contribution to death; the trial judge sufficiently directed the jury on intention and causation and did not misdirect on joint enterprise; the verdict was not unsafe.

  • 20 Sept 1994

    LAM KING HANG v. R.

    Citation
    LAM KING HANG v. R.
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC273/1993

    Although mens rea is an element of conspiracy, the omission to direct the jury specifically that the defendant must have intended the plan to be carried out did not render the verdict unsafe because there was no evidence from which a jury could properly find lack of intention; the jury were correctly directed on whether the defendant agreed to the conspiracy and the factual record established intent.