CS v WCT [2020] HKFLR 823, [2020] HKFC 276
Robert Pang SC, Eric Leung, and Gigi Ho appeared for the respondent in the Family Court in CS v WCT [2020] HKFLR 823, [2020] HKFC 276. The parents in this case were married in 2013. They had two children, a boy aged 4 and a …
Secretary for Justice v Chan Kin Chung [2021] 1 HKLRD 563
Steven Kwan appeared for the defendant in the Court of First Instance in Secretary for Justice v Chan Kin Chung [2021] 1 HKLRD 563. After a police constable (PW1) used his firearm during a public order event and a 21-year-old person was injured by one shot, …
Wong Kwai Sang v The Bar Council [2021] 1 HKLRD 455
Steven Kwan appeared for the successful Bar Council in the Court of Appeal in Wong Kwai Sang v Bar Council [2021] 1 HKLRD 455. This was an application by a summons filed on 21 January 2020 for an extension of time to appeal against a …
Hong Kong Journalists Association v Commissioner for Police [2021] 1 HKLRD 427
Philip Dykes SC and Robert Pang SC leading Timothy Parker and Albert NB Wong appeared for the applicant for judicial review in the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong Journalists Association v Commissioner of Police [2021] 1 HKLRD 427. The Hong Kong Journalists Association …
香港特別行政區 訴 陳以晉 [2021] 4 HKLRD 612, [2020] HKCFI 3111
關文渭大律師於香港特別行政區 訴 陳以晉 [2021] 4 HKLRD 612, [2020] HKCFI 3111中代表上訴人。 被告人被控「襲擊在正當執行職務的警務人員」罪(觸犯《侵害人身罪條例》(第212章)第36(b)條)(控罪一)、「在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器」罪(觸犯《公安條例》(第245章)第33(1)及(2)條)(控罪二)及「抗拒在正當執行職務的警務人員」罪(觸犯《侵害人身罪條例》第36(b)條)(控罪三)。他承認控罪一及控罪二，並在裁判法院受審後被裁定控罪三罪名成立。控方案情指，被告人用一支伸縮鋁棒襲擊警員(控罪一及控罪二)；其後，另外數名警員(包括PW2)加入逮捕被告人，而被告人一直激烈反抗，擺脫PW2、試圖搶奪PW2的警棍、緊握雙手在身前、不聽從PW2的指令，以阻止警員拘捕他(控罪三)。原審時，被告人選擇不作供。他提出兩方面的抗辯理由：(i)他就控罪三所使用的武力乃出於自然反應，而他無意抗拒警員；及(ii)警員曾使用不必要和過份的武力逮捕他，因此當時並非在正當執行職務，而他的行為可視為自衛。被告人的結案陳詞亦承認事件中他頭部所受的一條五厘米長的深線性裂傷的成因不明。被告人不服定罪，提出上訴，理由為原審裁判官：(i)在裁定警員誠實可靠前，未有考慮他們未能解釋被告人頭部的傷勢一事；(ii)錯誤地把證明被告人頭部傷勢的成因的責任加諸被告人身上；及(iii)在缺乏證據基礎下，假設被告人頭部的傷勢在他抗拒警員期間自行造成。 裁決—駁回定罪上訴： (1) 原審裁判官裁定控方證人誠實可靠前，已充分考慮被告人頭部的傷勢。被告人頭部的傷勢是案中的重要證據，原審裁判官不可能未有予以考慮。[見第24段] *613 (2) 原審裁判官亦沒有把證明被告人頭部傷勢成因的責任倒轉施加於被告人身上。當她指出被告人未能指明傷勢成因時，她只是指出事實，並無誤解 Browne v Dunn 原則。此外，被告人在原審期間從無提出其傷勢可能是被警棍擊打所致，但在上訴時提出此說，實有欠公平。被告人的醫療報告本身並不支持這說法；在被告人沒有作供下，他告知醫務人員關於被警務人員襲擊的內容只屬傳聞證據；而被告人接受盤問期間沒有向控方證人指出這案情。控方大律師向控方證人提問時，他們亦已否認用警棍擊打被告人頭部 (Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 予以考慮)。[見第25至35段] (3) 根據相關錄影片段，原審裁判官指被告人在抗拒警員期間令自己頭部受傷的裁斷乃為合理推論。[見第36段] (4) 鑒於上述各項，原審裁判官的裁斷正確，被告人的定罪亦無不穩妥之處。[見第37段] [此判詞概要出自於 HKLRD] …
HKSAR v Fu [2021] 1 HKLRD 476
The Court of First Instance allowed the appeal against sentence of the Appellant, who was convicted for "operating money service without a licence" contrary to section 29 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615). Representing the Appellant, Brian Tsui argued that the …
Re Estate of Chiu Keung [2020] 3 HKLRD 779
Steven Kwan appeared for the successful respondents/administrators in the Court of Appeal in Re Estate of Chiu Keung [2020] 3 HKLRD 779. X died in 1955. The administrators of X’s estate appointed by the Court (Ps) applied for directions on the distribution of that estate under …