Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Hong Kong

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-4 of 4

HKSAR v. Ho Yau Yin [Hong Kong] [April 21, 2010]

Ho Yau Yin was holding a lighted cigarette on a restaurant premises when spotted by smoking inspectors.  Ho was convicted and fined by the trial court.  Ho appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, arguing that he was not smoking "indoors" because the part of the premise on which he was smoking was not enclosed enough to be considered "indoors. The Court found that, in order for a premise to be considered "indoors" under the law, the area must be enclosed at least 50% on each side and dismissed Ho's appeal.  However, the Court refused to restore the conviction due to the length of time that the appeal was pending and the lack of sufficient evidence against Ho.

HKSAR v. Lui Kin Hong [Hong Kong] [April 06, 2001]

This was a final appeal by Mr Lui against his conviction and sentence.

Mr Lui was convicted of conspiracy to accept advantages contrary to common law and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. A jury had found that, while an agent of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited, Mr Lui had accepted bribes in the order of $23 million for ensuring the supply of cigarettes to certain companies. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay $500,000 in fines, $10 million in restitution and prosecution costs of $11 million.

In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Lui's appeals against both conviction and sentence, and increased the sum that Mr Lui was required to pay by way of restitution.

Secretary for Justice v. Lui Kin Hong [Hong Kong] [December 14, 1999]

This was an appeal by the Secretary for Justice from a decision of the Court of Appeal quashing Mr Lui's conviction. Mr Lui had been convicted of conspiracy to accept advantages contrary to common law and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. A jury had found that, while an agent of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited, Mr Lui had accepted bribes in the order of $23 million for ensuring the supply of cigarettes to certain companies. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay $500,000 in fines, $10 million in restitution and prosecution costs of $11 million.

The Court of Appeal had quashed Mr Lui's conviction on the basis that the trial judge had wrongly admitted documents into evidence under s22 of the Evidence Ordinance (see: HKSAR v Lui Kin Hong [1999] HKCA 176).

In this decision, the Court of Final Appeal unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Court of Appeal to hear the remaining grounds of appeal. The Court of Final Appeal disagreed with the Court of Appeal that the documents had been wrongly admitted into evidence on the basis that, although they contained hearsay evidence, they were not admitted for the truth of their contents and were admissible for the purpose for which they were relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal against conviction and sentence: HKSAR v Lui Kin Hong [2001] HKCA 140; [2001] 2 HKC 513.

HKSAR v. Lui Kin Hong [Hong Kong] [February 26, 1999]

This was an appeal by Mr Lui against his conviction of conspiracy to accept advantages contrary to common law and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

A jury had found that, while an agent of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited, Mr Lui had accepted bribes in the order of $23 million for ensuring the supply of cigarettes to certain companies. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay $500,000 in fines, $10 million in restitution and prosecution costs of $11 million. Mr Lui appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis of an error of law; namely, that the trial judge had wrongly admitted crucial documents into evidence (the "GIL/Pasto" documents).

The trial judge had admitted into evidence certain documents of the companies Giant Island Limited (GIL) and the Pasto Company Limited (Pasto) for the purpose of demonstrating that the payments accepted by Mr Lui had not been properly accounted for. In this decision, the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Lui's counsel that those documents had been wrongly admitted under s22 of the Evidence Ordinance. The Court of Appeal therefore quashed Mr Lui's conviction.

Note: this decision was overturned by the Court of Final Appeal: Secretary for Justice v Jerry Lui Kin Hong [1999] HKCFA 8; (1999) 2 HKCFAR 510; [2000] 1 HKLRD 92.

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.