Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lawful excuse

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃淦祥

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1595
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA71/2024

Photographic and witness evidence proved the appellant intentionally threw eggs and tomatoes causing widespread staining (approximately 1m x 2m) that temporarily impaired the government's building appearance and use; temporary impairment qualifies as 'damage', the appellant had no lawful excuse, and he had the requisite intent or recklessness — conviction must be upheld on retrial standard.
12 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. NG NGOI YEE MARGARET (吳靄儀) (D3)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC2/2024

The Court refused to follow Ziegler and Abortion Services for Hong Kong purposes and held that the established Hong Kong framework governs constitutional challenges: courts assess rule and/or decision challenges using the Hysan proportionality test; there is no separate requirement to conduct an "operational proportionality" assessment for arrest, prosecution, conviction or sentence where the impugned law and any decision to object/enforce are constitutionally valid; the appeals are dismissed.
22 Nov 2018

香港特別行政區訴曾慶佳

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA277/2018

The trial judge's acceptance of the prosecution witness's identification and surrounding circumstantial evidence was not shown to be clearly wrong; P&Q had custody or control of the iron bars; the appellant did not hold a genuine belief amounting to a lawful excuse; the fresh evidence did not meet the statutory/common law criteria (relevance, reason for non-production, and likely effect on outcome); accordingly the conviction and the sentence (14 days imprisonment suspended for 24 months) were affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
4 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. LAW LAM MAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA136/2018

The Magistrate's misstatement that the defence bore an evidential burden did not affect the safety of the conviction on ground 1 because the prosecution had adduced evidence proving absence of lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt; however, on ground 2 the Magistrate did not sufficiently sift evidence about whether the appellant was bumped and whether that event occurred before or after the alleged obstruction, rendering the conviction unsafe, so the conviction was quashed and no retrial was ordered.
11 Jan 2017

香港特別行政區訴李善芝

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李善芝
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA570/2015

Given the chaotic scene of road blockage by protesters and continuous loudspeaker warnings, the officers were lawfully executing duties to restore traffic and order, the appellant's passive resistance objectively increased the difficulty of the officers' task beyond mere inconvenience and she had no lawful excuse; therefore her conviction for obstructing officers is sustainable.
16 May 2012

HKSAR v. WONG SUI CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SUI CHING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC12/2011

The court held that s.59(2)(a) is unqualified: 'custody or control' need not be lawful under civil law for property to be treated as belonging to another; owners are protected by the statutory requirement to prove absence of lawful excuse, so the High Court's insertion of 'lawful' was erroneous and must be set aside.
21 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC90/2004

The judge's findings that the applicant participated in a joint enterprise, knew or believed the notes were counterfeit and had no lawful excuse are supported by the trial evidence (including admissions in the record of interview) and are unassailable on appeal; the proffered fresh evidence would not alter those findings and counsel conduct complaints do not demonstrate unfair trial, therefore leave to adduce further evidence is refused and leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 Aug 1993

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAM TAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAM TAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA457/1992

The Court held the magistrate was entitled to disbelieve the appellants' explanations and to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the television sets were supplied for smuggling rather than personal use; section 94A properly places the onus on the defendants to prove lawful excuse on the balance of probabilities, and even absent reliance on section 94A the magistrate's factual inferences were permissible, therefore convictions were upheld.