HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) (and 1 other)

[2021] HKCFA 37 Court of Final Appeal 4 November 2021 • FACC6/2021; FACC7/2021 • 62 min read
22 cases cited (0 HK, 22 foreign) Cited by 3 cases

Judges (5)

Counsel (15)

Parties (4)

Case Significance

HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) (and 1 other) [2021] HKCFA 37 is a Court of Final Appeal decision of 4 November 2021 engaging the Crimes Ordinance, the Criminal Procedure Ordinance section 81D, and the Public Order Ordinance section 19. It cited the earlier Court of Final Appeal decision HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) [2021] HKCFA 17, together with HKSAR V. LEUNG CHUNG HANG SIXTUS (梁頌恆) [2021] HKCFA 24 and SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE V. LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) [2021] HKCFA 32.

The decision was subsequently cited in later Court of Final Appeal matters, HKSAR V. CHAN HON WING (陳漢榮) [2021] HKCFA 45, HKSAR V. CHOY KIN YUE (蔡健瑜) [2022] HKCFA 14, and HKSAR V. MAK WING WA (麥永華) [2023] HKCFA 6.

Summary

Lo Kin Man and Tong Wai Hung appealed against their convictions for riot and related offences arising from the Mong Kok civil unrest of February 2016. The Court of Final Appeal considered the elements of riot and unlawful assembly under the Public Order Ordinance, including the requirements of common purpose and participatory intent. The appeals were allowed in part.

What statutory provisions does HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) (and 1 other) [2021] HKCFA 37 engage?

HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) (and 1 other) [2021] HKCFA 37, a Court of Final Appeal decision of 4 November 2021, engages the Crimes Ordinance, section 81D of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, and section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance.

Which cases did HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) (and 1 other) [2021] HKCFA 37 cite?

HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) (and 1 other) [2021] HKCFA 37 cited HKSAR V. LO KIN MAN (盧建民) [2021] HKCFA 17, HKSAR V. LEUNG CHUNG HANG SIXTUS (梁頌恆) [2021] HKCFA 24, and SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE V. LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) [2021] HKCFA 32.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Ordinance
s 81D
Public Order Ordinance
s 19

Cases Cited (22)

UK (8)
[1891] AC 107 [1907] 2 KB 853 [1982] QB 416 [1985] 1 AC 168 [1987] QB 426 [2003] UKPC 10 [2007] 2 AC 105 [2017] AC 387
HK (14)
(2004) 7 HKCFAR 475 (2009) 12 HKCFAR 568 (2013) 16 HKCFAR 837 (2014) 17 HKCFAR 319 (2016) 19 HKCFAR 640 (2020) 23 HKCFAR 518 [2012] 5 HKLRD 556 [2020] HKCA 275 [2020] HKDC 588 [2021] HKCA 404 [2021] HKCA 807 [2021] HKCFA 17 [2021] HKCFA 24 [2021] HKCFA 32

Cited By (3)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 93 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2021] HKCFA 37)