Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Menaces

  • 1 Apr 2022

    HKSAR v. TSANG FUK WING

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 487
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC91/2021

    The Court held that most grounds as pleaded were not reasonably arguable: grounds alleging prejudice from Mr Soo's death and an honest belief in the warrantability of the demand lacked evidential basis and were refused; the aggregate evidence (CCTV, phone records, messages, images) supported the judge's finding of a joint enterprise to blackmail. Leave to appeal was refused on conviction except that limited leave was granted to pursue a properly pleaded single ground challenging the sufficiency of evidence of the applicant's complicity in the joint enterprise; leave to appeal against sentence…

  • 8 Feb 2006

    HKSAR v. YEUNG WAN KAM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YEUNG WAN KAM
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC398/2004

    The appellant's claim of triad membership combined with implications that trouble would follow and the explicit demand for monthly payments (masked as wages) amounted to an unwarranted demand made with menaces; the trial judge's acceptance of the prosecution evidence was reasonable and the application for leave to appeal against conviction on that charge is dismissed; no order made under s83W.

  • 9 Jun 2004

    HKSAR v. HO CHEUK ON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HO CHEUK ON
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1258/2003

    Charge 4 (invitation to join a triad) was quashed because the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the Appellant invited PW1 to join; mere presence at an induction and receipt of a red packet did not constitute invitation. Charge 5 (blackmail) was upheld because, viewed in context, the Appellant's words amounted to menaces and would be understood by an ordinary person as an implied threat; the illicit cigarettes evidence was background and not prejudicial.

  • 3 Mar 2004

    HKSAR v. CHOW WANG CHIT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHOW WANG CHIT
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA117/2003

    The magistrate accepted the victim as an honest and convincing witness, found that the appellant made threatening calls amounting to menaces and an unwarranted demand within s.23 of the Theft Ordinance, and having considered the appellant's interview and good character (propensity), held there was no material unfairness or bias; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.

  • 9 Jul 2002

    HKSAR v. LAW KWOK SANG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAW KWOK SANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC330/2001

    Given the totality of circumstances — absence of any legitimate claim to money, the statement that they had not previously caused trouble coupled with reference to a 'big brother' associated with triads — the trial judge was entitled to infer menaces; that inference was open on the evidence and the appeal against conviction fails.

  • 3 Sept 1999

    HKSAR v. FUNG CHEUK SANG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. FUNG CHEUK SANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC9/1999

    Read in context the applicant's statement that the complainant would be better not to queue amounted to a threat of interruption or worse that a person of ordinary firmness would accede to, constituting menaces and rendering the demand unwarranted so the convictions for blackmail and consequent theft were correctly upheld.

  • 5 Jun 1997

    R. v. LEE HON WAH

    Citation
    R. v. LEE HON WAH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA30/1997

    The appellant's claim that counsel was incompetent was undermined by contradictions in the appellant's account and by the record; counsel's conduct did not amount to a denial of a fair trial, and the magistrate's credibility findings were properly reached and are not to be disturbed on appeal; therefore the conviction stands.

  • 30 Apr 1997

    R. v. LUI WAI HONG

    Citation
    R. v. LUI WAI HONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC565/1996

    The conviction was upheld because the judge validly inferred an implied demand from the defendants' conduct, correctly characterised the demand as unwarranted due to its loan‑sharking origin and lack of legal recoverability, and rightly found that the defendant's assault was intended to reinforce the demand and therefore amounted to menaces; appellate interference was inappropriate given the trial judge's advantage in assessing witnesses.

  • 28 Aug 1996

    R. v. TSANG KAM CHEUNG

    Citation
    R. v. TSANG KAM CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC127/1996

    The application was dismissed because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses, accepted the victim's account and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the demands amounted to blackmail; the appellate court had no basis to overturn that credibility finding and therefore affirmed the convictions.