Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Non-consensual buggery

  • 24 Mar 2026

    HKSAR v. EKSTROM PATRIK TOBIAS

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 514
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC186/2024

    The Mohini references were admissible as part of the complainant's account of what the appellant said to coerce her, defence counsel expressly allowed and used that material making a specific uncharged‑act direction unnecessary, and there was no realistic risk of impermissible propensity reasoning; the WhatsApp voice messages, while not explicit in using the word 'rape', were made within hours, to the employer's wife, in distress and in context were capable of amounting to recent complaints of sexual wrongdoing and were admissible; the judge's directions limited the messages' use to assessing…

  • 12 Mar 2025

    HKSAR v. EKSTROM PATRIK TOBIAS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 272
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC186/2024

    The court granted leave to appeal on Grounds 1 and 2 because those grounds were reasonably arguable — the failure to give an uncharged act direction and the admission of the voice messages as recent complaints raised arguable legal errors — and refused leave on Grounds 3 and 4 because they lacked substance or were not independently reasonably arguable.

  • 13 Nov 2024

    HKSAR v. EKSTROM PATRIK TOBIAS

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3274
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC272/2023

    Applying established authorities, the court held that the six defence points about the complainant's credibility, when balanced against the whole of the evidence and directions to the jury, did not create a substantial remaining or 'lurking' doubt and thus certification under section 82 CPO was not reasonably arguable; the application was dismissed.

  • 15 Jul 2016

    HKSAR v. AZAD MOHAMMAD FARHAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. AZAD MOHAMMAD FARHAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC173/2015

    The Court found no merit in the grounds attacking conviction, upheld the convictions, and held that much of the appellant’s complaint about trial fairness and counsel conduct was without substance; on sentence the trial judge’s exercise of discretion miscarried — the appropriate determinate sentences for the two sexual offences were 15 years each to be concurrent, and part of the robbery sentence should run consecutively; accordingly the 18-year rape sentence was reduced to 15 years and two years of the 4-year robbery sentence ordered consecutive producing a 17-year aggregate in CACC173/2015;…

  • 15 Jul 2016

    HKSAR v. AZAD MOHAMMAD FARHAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. AZAD MOHAMMAD FARHAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC253/2015

    Leave to appeal against conviction refused; appellate court found no merit in challenges to audibility, summing-up, jury directions, or prosecution comments given the trial record and directions. Sentence exercise was reopened: substituted 15 years for rape and non-consensual buggery (concurrent) and ordered 2 years of the 4-year robbery sentence to run consecutively producing a 17-year total in CACC173/2015; in CACC253/2015 ordered two years of the 5 years 4 months sentence to run consecutively to CACC173, resulting in a 19-year total for the appellant.