Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint enterprise/common design

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC198/2004

The appeal court held that (1) no Nedrick virtual-certainty direction was required and the summing up was adequate for D1 and D3, so their appeals were dismissed; (2) the trial judge materially erred in failing to give specific directions to the jury about possible withdrawal from the joint enterprise in D2's case and the favourable use of co-defendants' confessions to that effect, rendering D2's murder conviction unsafe; D2's conviction was quashed and substituted with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and re-listing for sentence; (3) D4's sentence of 4 years for conspiracy to pervert t…
30 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. MOY WAI FU

Citation

HKSAR v. MOY WAI FU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1212/1998

Magistrate erred by failing to direct on foreseeability in the joint enterprise context; because that misdirection affected the conviction for wounding under s.19 the conviction was quashed. Given clear evidence the Appellant kicked the victim once, the court substituted a conviction for common assault and reduced/terminated the community service sentence to reflect the lesser culpability.
4 Nov 1996

R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others

Citation

R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC373/1995

Where the only evidence linking each defendant to the offence are separate cautioned statements made individually, and there is no admissible evidence showing those statements refer to one and the same conspiracy, the cautioned statements cannot be used against co-defendants to establish a single joint conspiracy; accordingly there was no admissible evidence to support leaving the joint conspiracy count to the jury and no case to answer on that count.
22 Mar 1974

CHENG PAK HEI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHENG PAK HEI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/1973

The first applicant's conviction was quashed because the judge was not entitled to conclude that the post-charge answer admitted against him was voluntary given its close temporal proximity to earlier statements the judge had rejected as unreliable, and that admitted statement inevitably influenced the jury; by contrast the appellate court found the trial directions on manslaughter and accomplice evidence adequate, the confessions of the second to fourth appellants were rightly admitted as voluntary, and although the judge intervened excessively, that did not produce prejudice sufficient to r…
31 Dec 1970

WONG HO-MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG HO-MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC371/1970

The appeal of CHEUNG Fuk-chung (2nd appellant) must be allowed because the trial judge's emphasis on an alleged immediate un-cautioned oral admission ('I did take part') was prejudicial and could not fairly have been relied upon without undermining the fairness of the trial; by contrast the admissions as to voluntariness and the sufficiency of evidence in respect of the other appellants were upheld by the majority, and the convictions and sentences of the 1st and 3rd appellants were affirmed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN KONG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. MOY WAI FU

R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others

CHENG PAK HEI AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

WONG HO-MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN