R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others

R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others

Conspiracy to steal is an available alternative under s.51(2) only if the evidence shows one single conspiracy whose nature points to theft rather than robbery. The Crown's decision to offer no further evidence against D2 and D3 did not, by itself, prejudice the remaining defendants or amount to an abuse of process where the evidence indicated two distinct conspiracies. The court has power to restrain the Crown from departing from representations where the defence has acted to its detriment; there is no absolute requirement to name identifiable non‑present conspirators on an indictment absent necessity for the accused's defence.

Citation
R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant 1: Chan Lap Man (Raymond); Defendant 2: Ho Ming-yeung; Defendant 3: Luk Kan-hung; Defendant 4: Ah Fung (identified as Defendant 4); Defendant 5: Defendant 5
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 1996
Case Number
HCCC372/1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal – Conspiracy to Rob (with Issue of Alternative Conspiracy to Steal) / Trial (voir Dire Concluded; Jury Empanelled; Jury Discharged; Ruling on Abuse of Process and Amendment Requests)
Outcome
Jury discharged; D2 and D3 acquitted; applications to stay proceedings dismissed; Crown not permitted to renege on prior representations in a manner causing prejudice to remaining defendants; trial to proceed against D1, D4 and D5 before a new jury subject to court's directions.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Alternative Offence Under S.51(2) CPO, Admissibility and Editing of Cautioned Statements, Amendment of Indictment, Representations by Crown, Stay of Proceedings for Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Abuse of Process Conspiracy Alternative Offence Under S.51(2) CPO Admissibility and Editing of Cautioned Statements Amendment of Indictment +2 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 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Chan Lap Man (Raymond)

Defendant 1

Ho Ming-yeung

Defendant 2

Luk Kan-hung

Defendant 3

Ah Fung (identified as Defendant 4)

Defendant 4

Defendant 5

Defendant 5

Procedural Posture

Criminal – Conspiracy to Rob (with Issue of Alternative Conspiracy to Steal) / Trial (voir Dire Concluded; Jury Empanelled; Jury Discharged; Ruling on Abuse of Process and Amendment Requests)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conspiracy to steal is an alternative offence to conspiracy to rob under s.51(2) CPO
  2. 2 Whether acquittal of two defendants after Crown offered no further evidence prejudiced the remaining defendants or created a justifiable grievance
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proceeding against remaining defendants after dropping others amounted to abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Conspiracy to steal is an available alternative under s.51(2) only if the evidence shows one single conspiracy whose nature points to theft rather than robbery. The Crown's decision to offer no further evidence against D2 and D3 did not, by itself, prejudice the remaining defendants or amount to an abuse of process where the evidence indicated two distinct conspiracies. The court has power to restrain the Crown from departing from representations where the defence has acted to its detriment; there is no absolute requirement to name identifiable non‑present conspirators on an indictment absent necessity for the accused's defence.

Court Disposition

Jury discharged; D2 and D3 acquitted; applications to stay proceedings dismissed; Crown not permitted to renege on prior representations in a manner causing prejudice to remaining defendants; trial to proceed against D1, D4 and D5 before a new jury subject to court's directions.

Orders

  • Jury discharged and new jury to be empanelled for trial of D1, D4 and D5
  • Verdicts of not guilty entered for Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (acquitted)