Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of charge

Legal area

Court

11 Jan 2019

HKSAR v. CHAU YUI MING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 54
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC441/2015

By majority the Court held that on the facts of this case a single count alleging trafficking in the various drugs was not unfair or prejudicial given the prosecution case and the judge's favourable directions to the jury; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed, but a Certificate was granted because the court was divided and the point has wider importance requiring authoritative determination.
10 Nov 2017

RE MAHESH J ROY

Citation

RE MAHESH J ROY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV226/2015

Appeal allowed and conviction set aside because the presiding officer failed to provide sufficient particulars of the charge, failed to hear and consider the live defence of lack of wilfulness and the appellant's apology, and failed to give reasoned findings; these procedural defects rendered the summary process unfair and unsafe. The Court held that presiding officers may hear interruption contempt but must afford minimum fair process and give reasons. Costs of the appeal were ordered against the Secretary for Justice.
25 Jan 2011

HKSAR v. YAN SUI LING

Citation

HKSAR v. YAN SUI LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC435/2009

The court held that a particulars allegation specifying fraud did not add an element to the offence; it was unnecessary to prove the proceeds derived from that particular indictable offence and conviction was permissible where the court found the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the money represented the proceeds of some indictable offence even if not specifically fraud.
20 Apr 2004

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHOR KI, BILLY AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHOR KI, BILLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC242/2003

The charges were sufficiently particularised and the judge properly found dishonesty on the evidence; convictions and sentences of D1, D2 and D4 are safe and are upheld; D3's convictions on charges 2 and 3 are quashed because evidence did not establish his participation in those specific conspiracies, but D3's conviction on charge 1 is upheld.
21 Mar 2003

HKSAR v. LAM SIU FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM SIU FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA798/2002

The conviction could not stand because the charge and the magistrate's findings failed to identify or address the essential element of threatening an 'illegal act' under the provision relied on, depriving the appellant of clear notice; appeal allowed and case remitted for trial de novo.
18 Jan 2002

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR

Citation

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2112/2001

Leave to appeal granted ex parte by Keith JA was set aside because the Tribunal legitimately exercised Rule 6(1) to dismiss a wholly unsatisfactory, internally inconsistent and insufficiently particularised multi-charge complaint lacking primary documentary support; even if appellate jurisdiction were arguable, leave should not have been granted in these circumstances and the Court will not admit additional evidence not before the tribunal.
27 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. NG PAK MIN

Citation

HKSAR v. NG PAK MIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL70/1999

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the issues raised were within the magistrate's competence, the charge and summary of facts provided sufficient particulars to constitute an arguable case for trial, there were no exceptional grounds to stop proceedings by judicial review and the application was devoid of merit.
19 May 1999

HKSAR v. CHOW CHU TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW CHU TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC572/1998

The appeal was dismissed because the transcript showed the company operated at the address, and regardless the address in the particulars was surplusage and did not undermine the prosecution's proof of the offence, so there was no merit in the ground of appeal.
1 Feb 1999

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC1/1999

The prosecution's duty to identify or particularise alleged persons unknown is fact-dependent and was satisfied on the evidence here; the summing-up and directions were adequate and there was ample evidence to infer conspiracy with persons unknown; no exceptional 'grave and substantial injustice' was shown; certification and leave to appeal were refused.
3 Jun 1998

HKSAR v. POON YIN MAY CAMMY

Citation

HKSAR v. POON YIN MAY CAMMY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/1998

Where individual payments were multipurpose and could not be traced to particular appropriations, the prosecution was entitled to charge an aggregate sum; the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's credibility and the admitted schedule of payments provided a lawful basis for conviction, so the appeal against conviction was dismissed.