HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS

The court admitted prosecution evidence that CIK was experimental and hospital‑appropriate as relevant; evidence of safe system failures including laboratory setup, procedures, inventory and testing is admissible against D1 and D2 (subject to hearsay rules); evidence against D3 is limited, primarily to failure to ensure viral and bacterial testing prior to infusion; laboratory staff may testify to their knowledge and reasons for non‑participation and experts may give opinions if supported by trial evidence; hearsay exclusions apply to untested utterances (eg Ho Wai Yan) and to exhibit labels as to their truth; statements by D2 or D3 made without other defendants present are hearsay as to...

Citation
HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: CHOW Heung-wing, Stephen; 2nd Defendant: CHAN Kwun-chung; 3rd Defendant: MAK Wan-ling
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Case Number
HCCC437/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Prosecution evidence largely admissible as set out; hearsay constraints preserved; certain evidence limited to issues and defendants as ruled; several matters to be revisited at trial end
Legal Topics
Admissibility, Hearsay, Expert Opinion, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Safe Systems, Laboratory Procedure, Res Gestae, Building‑block Principle
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Medical Law Regulatory Compliance Admissibility Hearsay Expert Opinion Joint Criminal Enterprise +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHOW Heung-wing, Stephen

1st Defendant

CHAN Kwun-chung

2nd Defendant

MAK Wan-ling

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence that CIK cell infusion therapy is experimental and should be hospital‑based is relevant and admissible
  2. 2 Scope of admissible evidence about safe systems and laboratory management against each defendant given the particulars pleaded
  3. 3 Admissibility of testimony by laboratory staff and limits on lay opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted prosecution evidence that CIK was experimental and hospital‑appropriate as relevant; evidence of safe system failures including laboratory setup, procedures, inventory and testing is admissible against D1 and D2 (subject to hearsay rules); evidence against D3 is limited, primarily to failure to ensure viral and bacterial testing prior to infusion; laboratory staff may testify to their knowledge and reasons for non‑participation and experts may give opinions if supported by trial evidence; hearsay exclusions apply to untested utterances (eg Ho Wai Yan) and to exhibit labels as to their truth; statements by D2 or D3 made without other defendants present are hearsay as to...

Court Disposition

Prosecution evidence largely admissible as set out; hearsay constraints preserved; certain evidence limited to issues and defendants as ruled; several matters to be revisited at trial end

Orders

  • Evidence that CIK was an experimental process and should be hospital‑based is admissible
  • Evidence concerning APSC laboratory setup, procedures, inventory and related safe system matters is admissible against D1 and D2 (subject to hearsay rules)