Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No case submission

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2016

HKSAR v. FAN CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. FAN CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC343/2015

The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused because the non‑seizure of CCTV did not show police impropriety or inevitable prejudice, the judge expressly considered the absence of the footage and other missing evidence, and the conviction was properly founded on credibility findings and a permissible inference of guilty knowledge under recent possession given possession of the stolen motorcycle, removal of an identifying tail box, modification of the ignition and a false explanation of acquisition.
14 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. CHONG YUET KEUNG, TOMMY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG YUET KEUNG, TOMMY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC484/2005

The Court held the trial was fair, the video-recorded interview was admissible and any questions about voluntariness and weight were matters for the jury; the jury were properly directed on joint enterprise and alternatives; and the sentence of 6 years (reduced from a 7-year starting point to reflect limited mental capacity and other mitigation) was appropriate and therefore upheld.
16 Jan 2004

DR PAUL KI PING KI v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DR PAUL KI PING KI v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4173/2001

Because the plaintiff produced no evidence that any reader with the requisite special knowledge linked the article to him as sole proprietor, and identity was not obviously known to the public, there was no proof the words were published 'of and concerning' the plaintiff; consequently there was no case to go to the jury and the claim must fail.
4 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. TSE WAI MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TSE WAI MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1062/2003

The magistrate’s verdict that both appellants were guilty was upheld because (1) the identification of the 1st appellant was reliable on the totality of circumstances notwithstanding dim lighting and imprecise timing; (2) any error by the magistrate in offering his own Cantonese translation did not affect the outcome because he relied on the interpreter and the overall evidence; (3) the 1st appellant was found to have arranged provision of the beer by his words and the immediate sequence of events; and (4) the 2nd appellant, as cashier who accepted the marked note and provided change in the p…
26 Jul 1983

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WU LEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WU LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC863/1983

The appeal is allowed because the magistrate misdirected the appellant as to the burden arising from a presumed inference under section 19, which materially affected the appellant's decision not to give evidence and denied him a fair trial; therefore the conviction is unsafe and must be quashed.
14 Dec 1982

A1. YU TIT HOI AND OTHERS v.THE QUEEN

Citation

A1. YU TIT HOI AND OTHERS v.THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC620/1981

Convictions for manufacturing were unsafe and must be set aside because the evidence did not establish an actual manufacturing process and s.6/s.45 must be read as creating distinct offences/presumptions; equipment/materials may support a presumption of preparatory acts but do not alone sustain a conviction for manufacturing where proof of process is lacking and expert evidence was equivocal; furthermore improper use or revelation of inadmissible statements in cross-examination of a co-defendant and a potentially confusing jury exchange about burden of proof caused prejudice to the conviction…
28 Nov 1980

LEE CHUNG HOU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE CHUNG HOU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC927/1980

The conviction was quashed because the sole prosecution witness was shown to be unreliable on a material point and, in the absence of other evidence, that unreliability created reasonable doubt so the conviction was unsafe.
12 Sept 1980

YIU SHUI-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YIU SHUI-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC660/1980

The conviction was unsafe because the prosecution relied on an ambiguous interview record that failed to establish when or whether a concluded agreement to bribe was made; the trial magistrate erred in reconstructing a conversation from fragmented answers, and therefore the Crown did not prove the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
29 Sept 1978

LAI KAM-KIU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAI KAM-KIU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC306/1978

Assets under the appellant's control on the charge date (cash and shares) were prima facie grossly disproportionate to his official emoluments; consideration of total emoluments did not cause prejudice and the appellant's failure to provide any satisfactory explanation justified conviction under s.10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
26 Jan 1978

THE QUEEN v. TSANG TING-BUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TSANG TING-BUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC220/1977

The court held that it has jurisdiction to try a Crown servant alleged to have been in control of pecuniary resources disproportionate to official emoluments irrespective of the accused's physical location on the relevant date, and that the evidence then before the court established a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer; further, "disproportionate to" is not to be construed as strictly meaning "in excess of" total official emoluments and the court will not depart from established practice by ruling separately on each particularized item.