Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint enterprise liability

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2022

HKSAR v. LEE ERNEST

Citation

[2022] HKCA 104
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1/2018

There was no material non-disclosure about Lam Chun To (a statement was disclosed and he was not a suspect); the prosecution did not knowingly present a false case; the references to Lam were limited and contextual and irrelevant to the central issue of whether the applicant knew there were drugs; the renewed application and appeal were devoid of merit and dismissed, and a 6‑week loss of time order was justified.
8 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK YU a.k.a. CHAN MAN CHAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 756
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC341/2019

Leave to appeal refused for the 2nd applicant (D3) because the judge's adoption of a four-year starting point was not manifestly excessive, the judge was entitled to treat D3 as equally culpable with co-offenders absent clear distinguishing features, and D3's clear record did not require a discount for such serious fraud. Leave to appeal granted for the 3rd applicant (D6) because there was a reasonably arguable case that her limited, single and unsuccessful participation, lack of benefit, remorse and rehabilitation evidence could constitute exceptional or at least individualised circumstances…
14 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. LEUNG HO MAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC4/2019

The court refused the prosecution's immediate application to put the indictment again and declined to accept an alternative manslaughter plea at that stage because material admissibility and evidential lacunae (identification, CCTV, medical evidence and causation) needed resolution first; the defence is not precluded from challenging evidence despite a prior refused plea offer and a Newton hearing or further evidential testing may be required before any plea is accepted for sentencing purposes.
10 Jun 2019

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIZWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 643
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC232/2015

The Court held that there is no absolute constitutional right to state-funded legal representation at the appellate stage; the 'interests of justice' test (as applied in Fu Yan and Mirchandani) governs grant of legal aid on appeal and may consider merits. Applying that test, Appeal Aid Certificates for D4 and D5 were properly refused. D5's grounds and supplementary evidence were without merit and his conviction was upheld; his appeal was dismissed and the court exercised s83W(1) to order 2 months of custody pending appeal not be reckoned. D4's sentence of 19 years was within the judge's prope…
27 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. GURUNG SWATANTRA

Citation

[2018] HKCA 193
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC126/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge correctly applied Turnbull: although identification had weaknesses, it was supported by other evidence (applicant's admissions, CCTV showing him with a weapon, and his failure to explain those facts), making the conviction safe; the sentence of 30 months, while lenient, was not so excessive as to warrant interference given the aggravating features and need for deterrence.
1 Dec 2017

HKSAR v. YAMIN

Citation

HKSAR v. YAMIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC360/2016

The court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge did not err in law because the identification evidence was recognition evidence of good quality and therefore properly left to the jury; the hearsay about the names was not probative of identification and the judge gave clear directions to disregard it; and the sentence was not excessive because no exceptional rehabilitation was proven to justify deviation from the appropriate starting point.
30 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK NGAI AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUK NGAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2017

The court held that the video footages and photos were properly admissible as circumstantial evidence despite originals not being produced, that identification of the applicants was supported by direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and that bail pending appeal should be granted because the applicants faced a realistic prospect of serving most of their sentences before appeal and the starting sentence was arguably excessive, justifying interim release on conditions.
6 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. ZHENG XINGWANG

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHENG XINGWANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC218/2016

The Court upheld the judge's factual assessment and legal approach: the kidnapping was a very serious, meticulously planned cross‑border offence making an 18‑year starting point appropriate; after the full one‑third guilty plea discount the 12‑year sentence was justified, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
27 Jan 2017

HKSAR v. SHEK KA KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEK KA KWAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC438/2014

Leave to appeal against conviction for both applicants was refused. The judge’s directions on joint enterprise were correct under Hong Kong authority (HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing / Chan Wing Siu). A formal Nedrick direction was not required for Shek because the evidence showed sustained direct participation in the assault and throwing of the deceased into the sea; the directions given were adequate for the jury to decide intention. The judge properly warned the jury about and reviewed the evidence of prosecution witnesses who had immunity or pleaded guilty; Lai's complaints of bias and unsafe conv…
6 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/2014

The Court certified that the specified questions concerning the scope of joint enterprise liability in relation to murder are points of law of great and general importance and therefore granted a certificate under section 32(2) Cap.484.