Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence quashing

Legal area

Court

15 May 2019

香港特別行政區訴梁偉倫

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA522/2018

The appeal court held the conviction was unsafe because the critical admission relied upon by the trial judge was both inconsistently recorded by the two investigators and ambiguous in meaning; contemporaneous records did not support acceptance of the pre-caution statement as proved beyond reasonable doubt and alternative innocent explanations existed, therefore conviction and sentence must be quashed.
29 Jan 2010

HKSAR v. TANG WING SZE AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG WING SZE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA477/2007

Because recordings and a related District Court ruling seriously undermined the credibility of the undercover officers whose evidence the convictions depended on, the prosecution conceded and the court found the convictions unsafe; accordingly the convictions were quashed, charges dismissed and sentences set aside.
23 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. HUI KING KWOK

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI KING KWOK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC230/2007

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge's reasoning did not adequately deal with material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence (notably contradictions about the handwriting note and the refusal to provide a handwriting sample) and other unexplained matters, rendering the conviction unsafe.
19 Dec 2002

HKSAR v. KARAMJIT, SINGH

Citation

HKSAR v. KARAMJIT, SINGH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1129/2002

Magistrate erred by overemphasising the role of the appellant in facilitating a theft and by imposing custody on a first offender for a single push; custodial sentence was disproportionate and therefore quashed and appellant discharged; prior custody cannot retroactively validate an inappropriate custodial sentence.
12 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU KI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU KI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA606/1999

The learned Magistrate erred by refusing to apply or give himself a Turnbull direction and failed to address the specific dangers of identification evidence by an undercover police officer; that failure rendered the conviction unsafe and necessitated quashing the conviction and setting aside the sentence.
15 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. LUK HOI TONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK HOI TONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1138/1997

The conviction was unsafe because the defence failed to present admissible evidence of the appellant's good character at trial; given recognised inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, the omitted good character evidence was material and the prosecution did not discharge the burden of showing the verdict would have been the same, therefore the conviction and related penalties were quashed.
20 Aug 1986

TUEN MUK WO-HIM v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TUEN MUK WO-HIM v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC148/1986

Conviction quashed because the prosecution failed to prove that a passport bearing the specified number was stolen: the copy departure card (P46) was inadmissible without authentication and there was no evidence as to the 7th defendant's passport number, so the essential element of identification was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17 Feb 1984

THE QUEEN v. MOK HING WO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOK HING WO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1029/1983

Where, on appeal, material doubts exist about the safety of a conviction — including evidence that the complainant may be a confidence trickster and evidence supporting a legitimate claim of right by the defendant — the conviction is unsafe and must be quashed and the sentence set aside.
2 Sept 1980

MA KWOK WAI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

MA KWOK WAI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC644/1980

Following Cheng Chung-wai, an admission to police in response to questioning does not satisfy the statutory element of 'professing' under Section 20(2) of Cap.151; therefore the conviction based solely on such an admission was unsafe and was quashed.
17 Dec 1973

LAM PANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAM PANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC627/1973

Combined doubts about the reliability of identification, the paucity of evidence as to the appellants' specific role and intent, and a misdirection regarding alibi evidence rendered the convictions unsafe under s.83(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance; appeals allowed and convictions quashed.