Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Public order

  • 25 Jul 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 黃偉英

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2961
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA315/2023

    The High Court accepted the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant unlawfully used offensive language and engaged in disorderly conduct at the rehabilitation centre; convictions were therefore upheld, but the sentence was reduced because the original fines (HKD2,000 per summons) were disproportionate to the circumstances and were reduced to HKD1,000 per summons.

  • 25 Jan 2024

    HKSAR v. CHOW HANG TUNG (鄒幸彤)

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFA 2
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC9/2023

    The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal and restored conviction. The panel unanimously concluded the respondent's challenge did not succeed: either because, on the leading judgment of the Chief Justice, collateral re-opening of a prohibition upheld by the Appeal Board is not permissible in a prosecution under s17A(3)(a) given the statutory scheme and its emphasis on finality subject to judicial review, or because, on the alternative reasoning of other members, even if a collateral or constitutional challenge were available it fails on the facts because the Commissioner and Appeal Board act…

  • 24 Jul 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 温志成

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 1712
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA172/2014

    The appeal failed because the magistrate permissibly credited the police evidence that the appellant's masked, knife‑holding conduct while following two women was sufficiently suspicious to justify the forfeiture order and the refusal of costs; the prosecution's failure to prove the specific element of alarm prevented conviction but did not render the magistrate's orders unreasonable.

  • 10 Sept 2014

    T v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

    Citation
    T v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV3/2014

    Majority held that the word "admitted" in the definition of "public entertainment" carries an active meaning requiring the presenter to have the ability to control admission (and to exclude) to the place where the entertainment is presented; consequently PPEO licensing does not apply to an open public street or public place where the organiser lacks such control; on those facts no PPEO licence was required and the appeal was dismissed.

  • 15 Apr 2011

    HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHOI KWOK KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA970/2010

    The court found the one year sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, noting lack of triad or violence, doubtful reliance on hearsay about extortion, absence of identified background justifying a deterrent sentence and the appellant's time served; the sentence was reduced to effect the appellant's immediate release.

  • 26 Mar 1999

    WONG YEUNG NG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    WONG YEUNG NG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV161/1998

    The Court of Appeal certified the first question as a point of great and general importance — namely whether the offence of scandalizing the court is compatible with articles protecting freedom of expression such that it requires proof of a clear, present and imminent danger to the administration of justice — and declined to certify the second question about whether the specific pursuit of the judge constituted contempt in the absence of proof of actual interference, because the Court found contempt established by real risk of undermining public confidence.