Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Motive

  • 30 Jan 2015

    HKSAR v. CHEN XUEHUI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHEN XUEHUI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC394/2012

    The judge’s directions were legally adequate: the jury was properly directed that proof of knowledge required certainty beyond suspicion and that circumstantial evidence could only sustain a conviction if it yielded the only reasonable inference; directions on bipolar disorder were supported by evidence and did not improperly suggest propensity to offend; therefore there was no arguable misdirection and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.

  • 28 Aug 2008

    HKSAR v. LI YIM SANG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LI YIM SANG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC37/2007

    The judge's directions on motive were within judicial discretion because the evidence did not establish a proven absence of motive; motive was a matter for the jury to weigh and no misdirection occurred, so the application to appeal was dismissed.

  • 1 Dec 2006

    HKSAR v. LEUNG WING SING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEUNG WING SING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC94/2006

    The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the pathologist's and toxicologist's evidence coherently established a time of death (about 1–4 am) inconsistent with the applicant's account of events at 7:15–9:30 am, the children's evidence was properly treated and open to belief, the judge's summing up was fair (typographical errors were harmless), no material nondisclosure was demonstrated and the other alleged trial defects lacked merit; on that basis there was no arguable ground to overturn the conviction.

  • 11 Jun 2003

    HKSAR v. ZABED ALI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. ZABED ALI
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC2/2003

    Omar's evidence was inadmissible because it did not bear on the prosecution's pleaded motive (robbery) and, insofar as it was relied upon to show intent or that the appellant committed the killing, it was merely propensity evidence excluded by the established exclusionary rule; the conviction was therefore quashed and a retrial ordered due to improper admission and inadequate jury direction.

  • 28 Nov 1995

    R. v. POON KAM FAI

    Citation
    R. v. POON KAM FAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA992/1995

    The magistrate imposed 15 months based on an impression that the attack was unprovoked; on appeal the appellant provided credible background showing repeated pressure and provocation which constituted mitigation, justifying reduction of the sentence from 15 months to 9 months; appellate courts must correct sentences based on demonstrable factual mistakes affecting mitigation.

  • 21 Feb 1995

    R. v. CHAN SAI KIT

    Citation
    R. v. CHAN SAI KIT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC619/1993

    The tapes and evidence of insurance and proposed will alterations were properly admissible as evidence of continuing enmity and motive; the forensic scientist (Mr Tang) exceeded proper scope by opining the fire was "more probably accidental" but his limited conclusion did not negate a case to answer given the totality of expert and circumstantial evidence; omission to direct on manslaughter was an error but harmless under the proviso; appeal dismissed.

  • 24 Aug 1994

    CHEUNG SHU-TAI & OTHERS v. R.

    Citation
    CHEUNG SHU-TAI & OTHERS v. R.
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC609/1993

    Although the judge used regrettable language that might suggest police were more credible, when the summing-up is read as a whole there was no real danger the jury would treat police evidence differently; therefore the convictions were not vitiated and the appeals fail.

  • 24 May 1989

    THE QUEEN v. CHONG CHIU WO

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHONG CHIU WO
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC390/1988

    The Court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge's comments about possible motive did not improperly direct the jury because the inferences were open on the evidence and he warned the jury they were the exclusive judges of fact; and the totality of the sentence, though severe, was not so excessive as to warrant interference given the gravity, cold‑blooded nature and purpose of the attacks.