← All Authorities
Hong Kong Leading Case great general or public importance

HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung Karl

(2014) 17 HKCFAR 361
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2014
StatusBinding authority

Summary

CFA authoritatively restated the elements of misconduct in public office, requiring wilful misconduct and a seriousness threshold in the performance of public duties.

Key Principle

misconduct in public office; elements of the common law offence; wilful misconduct; seriousness threshold; public servant duties

Area of Law

criminal

Related Cases

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123

Appellate court must itself assess whether jury verdict was unreasonable where unchallenged opportunity evidence raised reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 272 CLR 177

Search warrant executed at journalist's home held invalid for technical defects; High Court considered scope of implied freedom of political communication but declined to quash the warrant on that basis.

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57

The High Court considered the Browne v Dunn rule and the appropriate jury directions when a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a matter it intends to contradict.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung Karl and how it applies to your situation.

Explain HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung Karl