HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

The court held the expert evidence was admissible because the opinions given by PW46 and PW47 concerned matters within their specialized forensic expertise (composition and likely use of recovered materials); statutory definition of 'explosive substance' did not convert scientific opinion into a question of law, and experts may address ultimate issues when within expertise subject to judicial directions to the jury.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 312
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: CHAN Yiu-shing; 2nd Defendant: CHENG Wai-shing; 3rd Defendant: PENNELLI Rizzy; 4th Defendant: WU Kai-fu; 5th Defendant: MAN Ting-lock
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Case Number
HCCC41/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence (reasons for Ruling)
Outcome
Objection by 2nd defendant rejected; expert evidence of PW46 and PW47 admitted
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Expert Opinion on Ultimate Issue, Definition of 'explosive Substance', Forensic Analysis of Explosives
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Forensic Science Statutory Interpretation Admissibility of Expert Evidence Expert Opinion on Ultimate Issue Definition of 'explosive Substance' Forensic Analysis of Explosives

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHAN Yiu-shing

1st Defendant

CHENG Wai-shing

2nd Defendant

PENNELLI Rizzy

3rd Defendant

WU Kai-fu

4th Defendant

MAN Ting-lock

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence (reasons for Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether scientific opinions about substances defined by statute amount to opinions of law and are therefore inadmissible
  2. 2 Whether an expert may express that they have discounted non-explosive applications and whether that exceeds expertise
  3. 3 Whether an expert may opine on the ultimate issue in criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the expert evidence was admissible because the opinions given by PW46 and PW47 concerned matters within their specialized forensic expertise (composition and likely use of recovered materials); statutory definition of 'explosive substance' did not convert scientific opinion into a question of law, and experts may address ultimate issues when within expertise subject to judicial directions to the jury.

Court Disposition

Objection by 2nd defendant rejected; expert evidence of PW46 and PW47 admitted

Orders

  • Objection to admissibility of expert evidence dismissed
  • Evidence of PW46 and PW47 admitted subject to appropriate directions to the jury