Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of cctv evidence

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴鄭小魚

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA309/2024

On rehearing and after viewing the CCTV (P2) and accepting police identification evidence, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally pushed the victim's hand constituting common assault; the conviction is therefore upheld. Having considered the appellant's record and the similarity to a prior suspended sentence, activation of that suspended sentence and ordering consecutive terms was not erroneous or manifestly excessive, so the sentence is upheld.
10 Oct 2023

香港特別行政區訴鍾錦明

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA352/2021

CCTV established the appellant failed to monitor and anticipate traffic, approached too close to the vehicle ahead and executed an unnecessary sudden brake, thereby breaching the statutory duty under Cap.230A to take all reasonable precautions for passenger safety; the evidence therefore supports upholding the conviction.
26 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴許麗琪

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA21/2022

The CFI upheld the trial judge's credibility findings as reasonable and supported by conduct and CCTV evidence; the judge had considered the appellant's personal circumstances but legitimately disbelieved her forgetfulness explanation; absent perverse or illogical findings the appellate court will not overturn the conviction, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
11 Aug 2021

香港特別行政區訴羅興娟

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2313
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA468/2019

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings because the judge carefully assessed live testimony and CCTV evidence, found the prosecution witnesses honest and reliable, and the findings were neither irrational nor unsupported by the evidence; accordingly there was ample evidence to convict and the appeal was dismissed.
8 Mar 2019

香港特別行政區訴魏燕芳

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA502/2018

The Court concluded the appellant's conduct was properly characterised as拾遺不報 in the circumstances and, given her mild intellectual disability, limited autonomy and background, a 4‑month immediate custodial sentence was manifestly excessive; the appeal was allowed and the sentence was substituted with a fine of HK$1,500.
23 Aug 2018

WONG SHUI MING v. YEUNG KAM SHING

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1029
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1725/2015

Defendant liable for the push (criminal plea and CCTV); however the force was minimal and objective evidence, expert opinion and CCTV showed plaintiff's complaints were unreliable and injuries were trivial; plaintiff awarded limited damages totalling HK$8,409.80 plus interest; no award for future loss or loss of earning capacity.
5 Jun 2013

香港特別行政區訴葉錦平

Citation

香港特別行政區訴葉錦平
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC344/2012

The Court held that, on the admitted evidence (the card's name and number matching the named person but the photo not matching, the Immigration records and the police witness testimony that the card was recovered from a waist pouch on the applicant), the only reasonable inference was that the card was a forged identity card and that it was possessed by the applicant; the CCTV was inconclusive and did not undermine the police evidence, so the conviction was not unsafe.
6 Aug 2010

BHANA, ANGELA MARY v. OCEAN APEX TRADING LTD

Citation

BHANA, ANGELA MARY v. OCEAN APEX TRADING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1732/2009

Given layout and foreseeable likelihood of collisions in narrow aisles and in front of a mirror, Ocean failed to take reasonable care in managing staff movement; the sales assistant (Wang) acted negligently in walking briskly and failing to avoid contact, Ocean is vicariously liable; plaintiff was partly to blame and contributory negligence fixed at 15%, leaving Defendant 85% liable.
3 Dec 2009

HKSAR v. CHENG HUNG KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG HUNG KWONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC138/2009

Viewing the CCTV and witness evidence the Court concluded the only irresistible inference was that the 2nd applicant acted in concert with the group to threaten and back up threats with force; the trial judge did not improperly act as advocate; the 21-month starting point for each wound charge was appropriate given the intimidatory group conduct, therefore leave to appeal and substantive appeals were refused.
21 Nov 2008

HKSAR v. YUNG CHI TUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YUNG CHI TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA296/2008

Appeal allowed because the magistrate accepted the co-defendant's account that he did not fight while convicting the appellant for fighting; that factual inconsistency meant the charge of fighting was not properly established and the magistrate should have considered amending the charge under s27 to reflect a one-sided assault, so the conviction could not stand and was quashed.