Justification of Self-defense in Crimes: Hong Kong

Justification of Self-defense in Crimes: Hong Kong
Name:
Institution:
Course Title:
Instructor:
Date:
Justification of Self-defense in Crimes: Hong Kong
Self defense is commonly asserted in homicide, assault and battery cases in Hong Kong. Self defense in Hong Kong is considered as one of the Hong Kong law defenses. This applied in cases where a burglary takes place in a residential place or even a business premise and there is no enough time to respond by calling the police (Gaylord et al., 2009). But instead, a person responds by killing the culprits using a weapon they posses. The burden in such cases lies on the prosecution to justify to the jury that the act was carried out under self-defense (Wai-Kin, 2011). In Hong Kong law, individuals are allowed to use necessary force to defend themselves, others and their property. A test of the cases on self defense in Hong Kong was tested in the R v. Lau Cheung-Lam (1997) HKLY 273 where the court ruled out that self defense was allowed. In another case of Palmer v. R (1971) AC 814, the accused appealed to the jury that the judge had given a wrong verdict by summing up the act of self defense. However, the appeal was later dismissed as the jury decision was not influenced by the summing up. In another case of The Queen v. Leung Ka-fai (1992) 1 HKCLR 255, the accused was convicted of murder and later on launched an appeal. The appeal was based on the fact that the trial judge had wrongfully directed the case on self defense. The conviction was abandoned the court maintaining that the accused had a right to self defense and as per the Beckford v. R (1988) 3 All ER 425 in London (Wai-Kin, 2011).
First, in Hong Kong the jury is mandated to determine the level of honesty that the force used by the accused was reasonable. It is also determined whether the person under attack had a chance to withdraw before applying the force. The accused can therefore only be convicted of murder if the jury fails to believe that it was an act of self defense and also if the accused used unreasonable force in defending themselves (Jackson, 2003; Ngok, 2010; Chan, 2011). The jury in Hong Kong law is mandated to analyze and weigh out the credibility of the accused claims on self defense at the trial. In the HKSAR v. Lau Wa-Kuen (2001) HKLRD (Yrbk) 308, the accused was convicted due to owning an offensive firearm in a public place (Wai-Kin, 2011; Young & Ghai, 2014). The evidence showed that the accused had every reason to carry a weapon in case he or she was under immediate fear of attack (Walzer, 2006; Lo, 2011). In this case, the accused was carrying the weapon which was a water pipe with the intention to repair a pipe and the fact that he went to look for the assailant, the intent changed from self defense to revenge (Wai-Kin, 2011; Dershowitz, 2006).
In Hong Kong, carrying a weapon for self defense does not justify the right to use it. Even if there is fear amounting from previous experience of violence or an attack. In Wong Christopher Milton v. HKSAR (2006) 9 HKCFAR 295, the accused was convicted of possessing a knife in public place in fear of being attacked as he had been a victim before. The Court of Final appeal refused to acknowledge the application of self defense and stated...