Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wounding with intent

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴段賢熾

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1735
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC1090/2024

Although the defendant is currently unfit to stand trial under s75, the court accepted the credible evidence of PW1 and corroborating police photographs and found beyond reasonable doubt on the s75A hearing that the defendant on the incident date intentionally struck PW1 multiple times with a metal cane causing injury and recklessly placed fabric on a stove causing fire and property damage, thereby proving the acts constituting the charged offences.
27 Nov 2024

HKSAR v. GURUNG ROYAL

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1120
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2024

The forensic evidence (DNA on mask, cap, bags, clothing and knife handles; fingerprints and palm print on vehicle and items including a knife bearing the victim's blood) corroborated PW2 and CCTV evidence to establish the applicant's presence and participation; the judge gave correct and comprehensive directions on identification, burden and drawing of inferences; accordingly the conviction was safe and leave to appeal was refused.
12 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴李茵茵

Citation

[2024] HKCA 860
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC237/2023

The single-judge refused leave to appeal because the trial judge did not err in principle nor impose a manifestly excessive sentence: the offences were serious, the applicant actively participated in group violence and later disposed of shoes to defeat identification, mitigating factors (including volunteer service and some provocation) were insufficient to outweigh aggravating features, and the totality principle supported the cumulative sentence of five years six months.
8 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴彭炳堃

Citation

[2024] HKCA 763
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC69/2024

The Court refused leave because the trial judge lawfully and reasonably accepted the prosecution case, properly rejected the appellant's self-defence account on the evidence (victim testimony, CCTV and confession), and imposed a sentence that was within the appropriate range given the use of a knife, the seriousness of the injuries and the applicant's background; no arguable error of law or principle was shown on appeal.
17 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴徐俊傑

Citation

[2024] HKDC 949
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC329/2022

The court found the legal representatives credible and supported by contemporaneous signed instructions, the defendant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, medical evidence did not show incapacity to the requisite degree, and there was sufficient time and explanation; consequently the plea was voluntary and informed and there was no proper basis to exercise the court's discretion to allow withdrawal — the application to overturn the guilty plea was dismissed.
13 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. ARIF AQIB AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1320
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC223/2020

The judge erred in answering the jury's question by conflating joint enterprise principles with traditional accessorial liability language of 'intention to encourage' and 'assistance', thereby shifting focus from the prosecution's pleaded case of joint enterprise based on specific roles; the misdirection risked causing the jury to convict on an inappropriate basis, rendering the convictions unsafe; appeals allowed, convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
22 Aug 2023

HKSAR v. DA SILVA SANTOS ALEXANDRO

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1007
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC83/2023

Unchallenged CCTV footage and the applicant's admissions showed he armed himself, returned to the scene, and attacked Bali; he could have left but instead pursued and attacked Bali so the defence of self-defence was untenable (R v Rashford inapplicable); consequently the proposed appeal was not reasonably arguable and bail pending appeal was refused.
15 May 2023

香港特別行政區訴周衍龍

Citation

[2023] HKDC 726
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC714/2021

The court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice to allow D1 to change his pleas on counts 2 and 3 from wounding with intent (section 17) to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (section 19) because D1's affidavits and counsel's admissions showed the earlier plea was entered with an over-focus on sentencing rather than facts and counsel had not adequately explored the merits of a lesser plea; the prosecution retains the right to accept or reject the amended pleas, and if rejected the court will proceed to trial to determine guilt.
6 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. TUNG PAK FAI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1470
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge correctly applied established principles: the offender's clear intent to inflict really serious harm, detailed premeditation, carrying multiple knives, targeting the chest with potential fatal consequence and persistence in holding the weapon rendered a 12‑year starting point and resulting 9‑year sentence (after discount) not manifestly excessive; the limited injuries were fortuitous and did not undermine culpability.
1 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. MAK HOI CHING also known as MAK CARMEN KA MAN and MAK KA MAN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 353
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC190/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's treatment of evidence about the parties' sexual relationship was properly regarded as relevant background and credibility material, not impermissible propensity reasoning, and because the defence psychiatric report was rightly discounted as speculative and of no real assistance given no examination or diagnosis of the victim; the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable.