Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recording of convictions

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴朱志豪

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA295/2024

The High Court, on rehearing, found no material error of law or fact that affected the sentence: even if the precise cancellation dates were misstated, the appellant knowingly drove without a valid licence and without third‑party insurance and the magistrate properly balanced seriousness and mitigation; the fresh evidence application was refused as it could have been produced at trial and would not have altered sentence; therefore the suspended custodial sentence and fines were not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
26 Nov 1992

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIU KAM FUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIU KAM FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA746/1992

Section 19 of the Magistrates Ordinance preserves the distinction between complaints and informations and, where an information has been laid and the defendant pleads guilty, the magistrate is statutorily required to convict and record the conviction; he had no jurisdiction to reverse that conviction and order no conviction be entered and bind the respondent over under the Justice of the Peace Act 1361.
14 Aug 1981

MOY CHUNG MAN JOHN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

MOY CHUNG MAN JOHN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP449/1981

The Commissioner was not obliged to issue an unqualified 'clean' Certificate of No Criminal Conviction where police records showed a prior finding of guilt with an order of 'no conviction recorded'; disclosure of that fact to assist immigration authorities was a proper exercise of the Commissioner's discretionary public service; the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief were not justiceable or appropriate and would be refused in the exercise of discretion; the estoppel claim failed because no enforceable representation created a right to a clean certificate and the Commissioner acted with…
15 Mar 1976

CHAN MAN-POR v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN MAN-POR v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC238/1976

Given the mitigating factors (short-term loans, prompt repayment, exorbitant interest charged by lender, absence of departmental connection, long government service and potential disproportionate employment/pension consequences), the court held that recording convictions was inappropriate and ordered that no convictions be recorded in each case and that the fine in Criminal Appeal No.219 be set aside and refunded; the magistrate's exercise of discretion was altered accordingly.
15 Mar 1976

LEE SHING-TIM v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE SHING-TIM v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC218/1976

Given the appellants' circumstances — lack of official connection with the lender, loans for personal short-term needs, repayment, long public service and mitigating factors — the Court allowed the appeals to the extent that convictions should not be recorded; in the distinct but related case (No.219) the fine was set aside and no conviction recorded and any fine paid must be refunded.
29 Nov 1971

HUI CHI CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUI CHI CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC713/1971

Ex abundante cautela the court exercised its power under s.119(d) to set aside sentences, record convictions and reimpose equivalent sentences in nine cases where there was doubt that a conviction had been properly recorded; the practical remedy is to require magistrates to use explicit language ('convict' or 'convicted') where a conviction is intended, although the broader legal question whether a finding of guilt alone suffices was left to be resolved by a Full Court if necessary.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 朱志豪

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIU KAM FUNG

MOY CHUNG MAN JOHN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

CHAN MAN-POR v. THE QUEEN

LEE SHING-TIM v. THE QUEEN

HUI CHI CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

香港特別行政區訴朱志豪