Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mental health evidence

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2023

MOHABUB ZAMAN MITHU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP542/2022

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully and rationally assessed credibility, country information and protection options, no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated, and the delay was substantial; therefore granting extension would be futile.
22 Sept 2022

MOHABUB ZAMAN MITHU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2491/2020

The Court refused extension of time and dismissed the leave application because the delay was substantial (over 18 months) and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings, acceptance of state protection and internal relocation, and absence of legal or procedural error rendered the proposed judicial review untenable.
13 Sept 2021

香港特別行政區訴黃駿軒

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA303/2020

The trial judge's factual findings that (1) drugs and paraphernalia were found in the appellant's vehicle, (2) the evidence chain was sufficiently explained, and (3) the appellant's admissions were voluntary, were reasonable, logical and supported by the record; minor discrepancies identified on appeal were immaterial and insufficient to vitiate the conviction, and appellate interference with those primary findings was not justified.
12 Apr 2018

香港特別行政區訴成柏傑

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 755
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA76/2018

The conviction is upheld because the trial magistrate's detailed credibility findings on PW1 were reasonable and untainted by error, the prosecution proved the elements of fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant failed to meet the legal requirements to admit fresh evidence or show judicial bias.
6 Feb 2003

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUNG CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUNG CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC431/2002

The Court refused leave because the applicant produced no evidential basis to undermine the sentencing; the psychiatric report showed only mild anxiety neurosis not warranting mitigation and there was no error in principle or manifest excess in the District Court sentences.

Hong Kong Case Law

MOHABUB ZAMAN MITHU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

MOHABUB ZAMAN MITHU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

香港特別行政區 訴 黃駿軒

香港特別行政區 訴 成柏傑

HKSAR v. LAU CHEUNG CHING

香港特別行政區訴黃駿軒

香港特別行政區訴成柏傑