Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against conviction, but granted leave to appeal against sentence out of time in a cocaine trafficking case.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against conviction in a cocaine trafficking case, holding that the trial judge’s summing-up was fair and legally correct.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a conviction appeal for rape and non-consensual buggery, holding that the Mohini references and WhatsApp voice messages were properly handled at trial.
Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal in a dangerous-drugs case, holding WhatsApp messages about drug slang and packaging were admissible proof of knowledge.
The Court held the trial judge failed to give adequate and properly sequenced directions on the subjective element of 'reasonable grounds to believe', omitted the required step of treating defence assertions that may be 'possible true' as part of the assessment, gave incomplete guidance on the nature of predicate offences (erroneously suggesting extraterritorial conduct was necessarily within Hong Kong law), and gave inadequate directions on conspiracy mens rea; these deficiencies rendered the convictions unsafe. Consequently the convictions and sentences of D3, D4 and D5 were quashed and set…
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal against conviction and leave to appeal out‑of‑time against sentence were refused because the trial judge properly directed the jury about reliance on PW1 and inconsistencies, the jury could rationally convict, and the sentencing judge followed orthodox starting points and methodology so the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal quashed rape and indecent assault convictions after finding that late complaints were wrongly treated as recent complaint evidence.
The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial for murder, holding that the trial error did not justify substituting manslaughter and that fair-trial concerns could be managed.
The Court of Appeal refused certification of two proposed questions of law after dismissing Ma Chun-kit’s criminal appeal, holding neither question met the statutory threshold.
The Court held the trial judge gave sufficient direction by identifying the discrepancies in the complainant's prior recordings and in-court evidence, instructing the jury on how to assess their impact on credibility, and reminding them they were the sole arbiters of fact; combined with objective DNA evidence corroborating the complainant, the jury's acceptance of her account was reasonable and the convictions were not unsafe, therefore leave to appeal and the appeals were refused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
