HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)2017

HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
112061-EN-2017-11-01

HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN

HTML content

FAMC No.28 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.28 OF 2017 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM

HCMA NO.620 OF 2016)

_______________________

BETWEEN

 HKSARRespondent
 and
 CHOI WAI LUN (蔡偉麟)Applicant

_______________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ

Date of Hearing and Determination: 1 November 2017

_______________________

DETERMINATION

_______________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.  We grant leave to appeal on the basis that the following questions of law involved in the decision in the present case and certified by the Court of First Instance are of the requisite importance, namely:

(a) Whether an offence contrary to s 122 (1) & (2) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, taken together is an offence of absolute liability when the alleged victim is a person under 16 years of age.

(b) Whether an accused charged under s 122 (1) with indecently assaulting a person who was under 16 years of age can legally put forward a defence that the person in fact consented and the accused genuinely believed that he/she was 16 years of age or over.

(c) Whether in a prosecution under s 122 (1) where the alleged victim is a person under 16 years of age the prosecution is required to prove absence of genuine belief on the part of the accused that the person was 16 years of age or over.

2.  The appeal will be heard on 23 April 2018.

 

 

(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge
(Robert Tang)
Permanent Judge
(Joseph Fok)
Permanent Judge

  

Mr Wong Po Wing, instructed by Eli K.K. Tsui & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant

Mr Ned Lai, SADPP and Ms Audrey Parwani, SPP (Ag.) of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent