HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the challenged admissions (verbal admission at Sha Tau Kok, the post‑record, and the video‑recorded interview and transcript) were voluntary; alleged threats, inducements and coaching were not established as having produced oppression; accused's transient illness did not render admissions involuntary; court declines to exclude admissions in exercise of discretion.

Citation
HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Accused: Yim Shek Wo
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Case Number
HCCC164/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking (indictment Under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance) / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of Admissions; Ruling Delivered
Outcome
Admitted the impugned admissions into evidence
Legal Topics
Admissions Against Interest, Voluntariness of Confessions, Oppression and Inducement, Fitness to Be Interviewed, Exclusionary Discretion
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Drugs Law Police Procedure Admissions Against Interest Voluntariness of Confessions Oppression and Inducement Fitness to Be Interviewed +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Yim Shek Wo

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking (indictment Under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance) / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of Admissions; Ruling Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions made at customs and in police interview were voluntary
  2. 2 Whether alleged threats or inducements by police amounted to oppression
  3. 3 Whether accused's medical condition rendered admissions involuntary or unfair to admit

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the challenged admissions (verbal admission at Sha Tau Kok, the post‑record, and the video‑recorded interview and transcript) were voluntary; alleged threats, inducements and coaching were not established as having produced oppression; accused's transient illness did not render admissions involuntary; court declines to exclude admissions in exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Admitted the impugned admissions into evidence

Orders

  • Admit into evidence: (1) verbal admission at Sha Tau Kok on 27 May 2016; (2) post‑record acknowledging the verbal admission signed 27 May 2016; (3) video‑recorded interview and accompanying transcript of 28 May 2016