Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasons for verdict

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. THAPA PREMKALA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2021

Because there was a substantial risk that a substantial part or all of the 12‑month sentence would be served before the appeal could be heard and because the appeal had at least a reasonable prospect of success given the potential irregularity concerning treatment of failure to testify and good character, the court granted bail pending appeal and ordered a transcript of the magistrate's verdict.
17 Jan 2018

HKSAR v. EAV KINSON MING KEONG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 24
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC385/2016

Leave to appeal was granted because the amended perfected grounds raised an arguable complaint that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that the conviction might be unsafe, meeting the low threshold for leave.
15 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. CHAN WING GO

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WING GO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC390/2014

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge failed to confront and explain why he accepted the complainant's examination-in-chief account after that account had been repudiated under cross-examination; the unexplained, fundamental contradictions rendered the conviction unsafe.
13 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. ONONUJU LIVINUS AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. ONONUJU LIVINUS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC190/2011

The convictions were quashed because the trial judge's Reasons for Verdict were superficial and failed to consider key issues (elemental issues of the offences, differences in knowledge between appellants, and possibility of genuine business transactions), and the judge's unqualified finding that defence documents were 'fake' deprived the second applicant of the opportunity to lead supporting evidence; the respondent's allegations of suspicion were insufficient to justify denying the second applicant the costs of the trial, therefore costs of the trial were awarded to the second applicant.
13 Jun 2011

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC83/2010

A District Court judge sitting without a jury is not obliged to expressly state in Reasons for Verdict that he has disregarded inadmissible evidence unless the evidence is so egregious and prejudicial that such an explicit statement is necessary; in this case the briefing evidence was not comparable to the gross evidence in Chow Hoi Ping, the judge avoided relying on it and based his decision on admissible facts (behaviour and confessions), therefore the omission was not fatal and the conviction was safe.
30 Oct 2009

CHING KUN KIN v. HKSAR

Citation

CHING KUN KIN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC53/2009

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal had adequately considered the complaints about reasons and consideration of the defence and there was no reasonable basis to argue it had failed to accord due consideration or had reached an untenable conclusion, so the threshold for s.32(2) was not met.
31 Mar 2009

HO KA KEUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

HO KA KEUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC20/2009

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to invite the alternative fraud charge, the applicant suffered no prejudice or double jeopardy, he had the opportunity to meet the charge, and the evidence was overwhelming to establish dishonesty such that the conviction was safe.
16 Dec 2008

HKSAR v. MUDANNAYAKALAGE CHAMINDA PUSHPA KUMARA AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MUDANNAYAKALAGE CHAMINDA PUSHPA KUMARA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC249/2008

D1's application for leave to appeal was refused because the court found there were not sufficient grounds to grant leave; D2 was granted leave and legal aid because there were identifiable concerns about the trial judge's findings on confrontation/identification evidence (notably para 18) that merited examination on appeal.
31 Oct 2008

HKSAR v. HO KA KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KA KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC196/2007

Majority upheld the conviction: the evidence permitted the judge to find that the applicant practised deceit and either knew of the falsity or was wilfully blind/reckless such that s.16A was satisfied; the trial judge acted within his management powers in permitting an alternative charge and the stylistic deficiencies in the Reasons for Verdict did not render the conviction unsafe where evidence was sufficient.
28 Oct 2008

HKSAR v. LAI KAM WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KAM WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA538/2008

A magistrate's failure to give oral reasons at the time of conviction does not automatically vitiate the conviction; where the conviction was pronounced publicly, counsel declined immediate salient reasons, a signed statement of findings is provided under s.114(b), and on rehearing the evidence is uncontradicted and the magistrate's credibility findings sustainable, the conviction is safe and the appeal must be dismissed.