Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voluntary intoxication

Legal area

Court

3 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. LIU SUN KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 4
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC348/2018

The judge did not err in refusing to direct the jury on voluntary intoxication or self-defence because the applicant’s trial case was run on provocation/unlawful act manslaughter, there was no evidential basis raised at trial for intoxication or self-defence that met the low but real threshold for leaving alternative verdicts, and allowing those directions would have inappropriately recharacterised the defence case.
7 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1278
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/2018

The Court held that (1) there was insufficient admissible evidence to leave suicide pact to the jury because the record did not support a common settled intention by the deceased to die with the applicant; and (2) under Hong Kong precedent statements made by the accused to psychiatrists constitute hearsay and, absent admissible proof of their factual foundation, may only be used as the basis for experts' opinions and their weight assessed accordingly; the judge’s directions were therefore correct and the appeal dismissed.
11 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. HUSNAIN SAFDAR

Citation

[2020] HKCA 454
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC39/2018

The conviction for murder was unsafe because the judge materially mischaracterised the psychiatric evidence on SIPD, depriving the jury of an accurate basis to apply the law; the record demonstrated the jury must have been satisfied of facts amounting to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, so the Court properly exercised s83A(2) to substitute a manslaughter conviction and imposed a determinate sentence of 10 years after applying a one‑third discount for the appellant's plea history.
18 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. ZHANG WENJI

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHANG WENJI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC71/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's guilty pleas were unequivocal, informed and made after careful pre-trial consideration; the psychiatric evidence did not establish diminished responsibility, legal insanity or epileptic automatism; intoxication was not a defense to murder here; allegations of counsel incompetence and evidence fabrication were unsubstantiated and did not constitute the required overriding factors to render convictions unsafe.
4 Dec 2015

香港特別行政區訴黃智佳

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃智佳
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA353/2015

Court allowed the appeal because the original sentence was excessive given the factual matrix: the appropriate starting point was nine weeks, not three months; after a one‑third reduction for guilty plea the appropriate sentence is six weeks. Voluntary alcohol consumption was not mitigating and the later conviction (sentenced 20 April) should not be treated as an antecedent for the 15 February offending; even if considered it did not make the appellant a repeat offender warranting a higher starting point.
24 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUNG FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUNG FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC241/2013

The judge materially misdirected the jury by concluding manslaughter did not arise and failing to leave manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act as an alternative verdict despite sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion; that misdirection entitled the court to quash the murder conviction and order a retrial rather than apply the proviso.
27 Jan 2012

HKSAR v. LI TAK MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LI TAK MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC369/2010

The admissions in the Video Interview were voluntary and corroborated by eyewitness identification and forensic evidence; voluntary drug use did not amount to mental illness or mitigation; the offence constituted a head-bashing robbery of high gravity and, having regard to the guidelines and the applicant's extensive criminal record, a sentence of 7 years (the maximum available to the District Court) was not manifestly excessive; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
29 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. MICHAEL KARL CORBIN

Citation

HKSAR v. MICHAEL KARL CORBIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA122/2010

The magistrate's factual findings that the appellant deliberately grabbed the complainant's breast were supported by credibility findings and evidence; any reference to intoxication as no defence was irrelevant to the central issue of accidental touching, and on re-hearing the court affirms the magistrate's conclusion that the touching was intentional beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction stands.
7 Jun 2007

HKSAR v. TANG YUK WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG YUK WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC183/2006

Majority held the convictions safe: the trial judge was entitled to reject the psychiatric evidence and find the applicant recollected and admitted key facts; expert evidence was unnecessary to displace the judge's assessment of memory and recklessness; voluntary consumption of large quantities of hypnotics and alcohol supported a finding of recklessness and did not afford a defence under Majewski in these circumstances.
16 May 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI YAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA258/2006

Conviction was quashed because the trial tribunal relied on the appellant's flight without demonstrating that it considered innocent explanations and without appropriate safeguarding, rendering the conviction unsafe despite correct legal proposition that voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to basic intent offences.