Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mens rea/intent

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2021

香港特別行政區訴陳俊傑

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA242/2020

Section 17 must be read broadly: both the open category ('other instrument fit for unlawful purposes') and 'any unlawful purpose' are not constrained by ejusdem generis in the present bilingual text and modern context; the Chinese text and s10B support an open reading; the trial judge permissibly inferred intent from the items, circumstances and rejected defence account; therefore conviction and sentence were properly upheld.
18 Sept 2017

香港特別行政區訴陳耀成

Citation

香港特別行政區訴陳耀成
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA377/2016

The judge refused the s32 certificate because the contested legal points were either not engaged by the decision or already settled: the trial judge did not rely on the folded knife and properly considered the accused's clothing as contextual evidence; the burden stayed with the prosecution; and the statutory test for an offensive weapon requires assessment of the possessor's intent rather than an objective third‑party intent, so no point of general public importance was shown.
24 Jun 2011

HKSAR v. CHENG KAM SHUI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG KAM SHUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA744/2010

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court found the Magistrate acted within lawful discretion: the delay in issuing supplemental reasons caused no prejudice, the Magistrate properly evaluated witness credibility and explained discrepancies, and the evidence as a whole supported safe convictions on charges 3 and 4.
21 Oct 2004

HKSAR v. YUNG KA LUN JERRY

Citation

HKSAR v. YUNG KA LUN JERRY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC202/2003

The court refused leave because the combination of the applicant's admissions, the forensic pathology showing multiple deliberate and forceful stab wounds (including two fatal wounds), and the absence of any arguable unfairness in the trial or summing up meant there was no realistic prospect of overturning the conviction for murder.
20 Mar 1997

R. v. LIN KUO LIANG, DAVID

Citation

R. v. LIN KUO LIANG, DAVID
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC356/1996

Convictions on charges 2 and 3 under s75(1) were quashed because the Crown's own case showed the letters had already been used (were 'spent') and there was no evidence of intent to use them in the future to induce a person under a relevant duty; however, the facts supported a substituted conviction for simple possession under s75(2); conviction on charge 1 under s76(1) was upheld because the judge could reasonably infer intent to make forged passports from the totality of documents and circumstances.
11 Jul 1995

R. v. SIN SIU LING

Citation

R. v. SIN SIU LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC132/1995

Although the applicant's involvement was comparatively indirect and there were mitigating factors (clear record, childcare responsibilities, tending the victim), the court held she must bear responsibility for arranging the assault and its serious consequences; however the original five year sentence was excessive on the facts and was reduced to three years imprisonment as the appropriate sentence.
13 Sept 1990

THE QUEEN v. WONG KA CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KA CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1124/1990

The conviction and sentences are upheld because the evidence of the victim and a corroborating sergeant was cogent and overwhelming such that the girlfriend's pre-trial discussion did not taint the evidence; the injuries described amounted to actual bodily harm; the appellants' intent to inflict the kind of harm was manifest under either subjective or objective tests; the sentencing procedural oversight was inadvertent and did not render the confirmed sentences unlawful.
CHU YUEN TAT v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHU YUEN TAT v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC43/1971

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge adequately put the appellant's defence (including accident) to the jury and properly directed the jury to consider the foresight/intention as applied to the appellant himself; any variation in wording about 'could' v 'would' was not sufficient to vitiate the conviction.