Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ransom

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2011

HKSAR v. KWOK TSZ LOK, LEO

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK TSZ LOK, LEO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC200/2008

Although prosecuting counsel's cross-examination raised inadmissible matters and was improper, the failure to object at trial and the defence's subsequent reliance on the same matters by calling the co-accused meant no material prejudice occurred; the convictions and admissions of the co-accused were integral to the defence, so additional directions about using those convictions were not required; the judge's directions about collateral investigations were clear and sufficient; therefore the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
29 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. PUN LUEN PAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. PUN LUEN PAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC555/2003

The conviction stands because the trial judge gave adequate Turnbull directions and the circumstantial evidence (marked ransom traces, company with co‑defendants, handling and concealment of marked money) was sufficient to support guilt; the unrelated illustrative example about recent possession did not amount to misdirection; however, the sentence for D1 was reduced from 21 to 18 years because the five‑year gap with other offenders produced a manifestly excessive disparity on the facts.
5 May 2005

HKSAR v. LEE KWOK OI

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWOK OI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC50/2003

The evidence against the applicant was overwhelming and there were no arguable grounds of appeal or proper basis for adjournment or stay; accordingly both applications were dismissed and the murder conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.
16 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. LI CHUN MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LI CHUN MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC32/2003

Because the jury must be assumed to have rejected the identification evidence, the trial judge was wrong to leave it to the jury to convict on the basis that DNA and fingerprint evidence plus a lie could establish presence and participation at the material time; the forensic evidence had no temporal linkage and the lie could not supply the missing proof, rendering the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
19 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. SHEUNG LAI-LAR

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEUNG LAI-LAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC262/2001

The court held that although the sentencing judge was correct not to discount for an unfulfilled promise to testify at the time of sentence, the applicant's continued cooperation after sentence, which contributed to the co-defendant's guilty plea, justified a modest reduction; the original 6 years 6 months sentence was reduced by six months to 6 years imprisonment.
15 Sept 1998

HKSAR v. CHUNG HON FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG HON FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC92/1998

For a planned, multi-participant kidnapping involving chloroform and a ransom demand, a 15-year starting point was not excessive; applying a one-third discount for guilty pleas and a further one-year reduction for good character produced appropriate nine-year sentences; the sentences were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and the applications for leave to appeal were refused.
15 Sept 1998

HKSAR v. LIU CHI FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU CHI FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC99/1998

In a planned kidnapping involving multiple participants and the use of chloroform to subdue the victim, a 15-year starting point for sentence is not excessive; applying a one-third discount for plea and a further year for character resulting in 9 years imprisonment is proper and not manifestly excessive, and thus the appeals against sentence must be refused.
2 Apr 1997

R. v. HO WING LEUNG

Citation

R. v. HO WING LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC645/1996

Bail pending appeal was refused because, on the material before the court, there were no realistic or very strong prospects of success; the trial judge's finding that the applicant advised the detainer to demand money reasonably supports the conviction for encouraging further detention (ransom/false imprisonment), so bail cannot be justified.
28 Sept 1995

R. v. LAW FU YING and Another

Citation

R. v. LAW FU YING and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC126/1994

The Court held the trial judge's directions on corroboration, identification, confessional statements and lies were adequate; the contested statements and videotape were properly admitted and the identification evidence properly tested; the convictions were safe and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
19 Sept 1995

R. v. LEUNG CHI WAH

Citation

R. v. LEUNG CHI WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC569/1994

The trial judge did not err in denying an indefinite adjournment because the sought witness's evidence was at best peripheral and unlikely to affect the safety of the conviction given the decisive evidence (admissions, taped demands and payment); the cautioned statements were admissible and the conviction was safe; leave to appeal out of time against sentence was refused and the six-and-a-half year sentence was upheld as not excessive in the circumstances.