Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Mistaken belief

  • 22 Sept 2025

    HKSAR v. CHAN SZE CHUN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 870
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC171/2023

    Leave to appeal was granted on (a) whether a genuine but mistaken belief direction was required and (b) admissibility of the Sad Toefl exchange, because both were reasonably arguable; all other grounds against conviction and the appeal against sentence were refused as not reasonably arguable or lacking merit; the sentence of 8 years was not manifestly excessive and the judge’s factual findings were supportable.

  • 9 Jul 2019

    HKSAR v. CHENG LING LING

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 636
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC66/2018

    The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the global sentence because the sentencing judge failed to account for the no-harm factor in respect of Counts 2 and 4; the correct approach is to determine the sentence the offender would have attracted for the drug and purity she believed she was trafficking and then apply a fact-sensitive reduction to reflect the lack of actual harm without undermining deterrence; applying that approach and specific reductions produced a substituted sentence of 5 years and 10 months imprisonment.

  • 7 Jul 2004

    HKSAR v. YIP WAI YIN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIP WAI YIN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC80/2003

    The Court adopted the combined approach, treated Ice as the more serious drug, set a starting point of 14 years (11 years for Ice adjusted upward by 3 years for significant Ketamine and increased potency), applied a one-third guilty plea discount and a one-year discount for genuine mistaken belief, and substituted sentences of 8 years 4 months imprisonment for each applicant.

  • 21 May 2004

    HKSAR v. YIU CHI WANG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIU CHI WANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC582/2002

    On the facts and reading the summing up as a whole, there was no misdirection on burden or standard of proof; the judge correctly limited the use of prior statements to credibility; directions on mistaken belief were unnecessary because no evidential basis existed and could only have advantaged the appellant; the inconsistencies did not create a lurking doubt and the jury verdict was safe, therefore the application to appeal was dismissed and conviction upheld.

  • 6 Nov 1997

    HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR12/1996

    The evidence of forcible, non-consensual intercourse as given by the complainant, and the acute conflict with the defendant's account, left no room for a defence of genuine but mistaken belief in consent; accordingly the trial judge's directions were adequate and the conviction stands. Separately, the original sentence of 3 years was manifestly inadequate for the offence of rape in the circumstances and was properly varied to five years on review.

  • 6 Nov 1997

    HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC594/1996

    The Court held that the evidence did not permit a defence of genuine but mistaken belief so no direction on that defence was required; the judge's factual answer to the jury did not prejudice them; however the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and on review was varied from three years to five years' imprisonment.

  • 20 Apr 1990

    THE QUEEN v. SOHN YOUNG SHEK, JOHN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SOHN YOUNG SHEK, JOHN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC239/1989

    Conviction quashed because the trial judge's directions cumulatively misdirected the jury by shifting emphasis from whether the accused genuinely believed the complainant consented (the subjective test) to whether there were reasonable grounds for such a belief, and by failing to explain the meaning of 'reckless', thereby creating a real risk of wrongful conviction.