THE QUEEN v. WAN HIN-TAK AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. WAN HIN-TAK AND OTHERS

The Court held that where a person knowing or believing another has committed an arrestable offence advises, facilitates or agrees to steps designed to impede apprehension or prosecution (including suggesting departure from the jurisdiction or fabricating explanations) such acts fall within s.90 and, where there is evidence of agreement manifested by conduct or communications, support liability for conspiracy; agreement can be inferred from consistent circumstantial evidence and the parties' concerted actions.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. WAN HIN-TAK AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Accused (1st): WAN Hin-tak; Accused (2nd): SO Yui-hung; Accused (3rd): PAO Wai-ling; Accused (4th): YU Shing-chan; Accused (5th): CHUNG Kwok-hung; Accused (6th): David George WILLIS alias WAI Wah-kit
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 1976
Case Number
DCCC183/1975
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (district Court Decision on Consolidated Charges)
Outcome
1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th accused convicted of conspiracy (first charge); 3rd accused acquitted and discharged on first charge; 1st and 6th accused convicted on second charge (conspiracy to obstruct public justice); 6th accused convicted on third charge (act with intent to impede prosecution under s.90 CPO).
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice, Advice to Evade Prosecution, Section 90 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Immunity of Witnesses, Admissibility of Cautioned Statements
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Corruption and Bribery Procedural Law Evidence Conspiracy Obstruction of Justice Advice to Evade Prosecution Section 90 Criminal Procedure Ordinance +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

WAN Hin-tak

Accused (1st)

SO Yui-hung

Accused (2nd)

PAO Wai-ling

Accused (3rd)

YU Shing-chan

Accused (4th)

CHUNG Kwok-hung

Accused (5th)

David George WILLIS alias WAI Wah-kit

Accused (6th)

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (district Court Decision on Consolidated Charges)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conduct and communications supported an agreement to obstruct justice (conspiracy)
  2. 2 Whether advising an offender to leave the jurisdiction or to give a false explanation constitutes an act with intent to impede apprehension or prosecution under s.90 CPO
  3. 3 Whether agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that where a person knowing or believing another has committed an arrestable offence advises, facilitates or agrees to steps designed to impede apprehension or prosecution (including suggesting departure from the jurisdiction or fabricating explanations) such acts fall within s.90 and, where there is evidence of agreement manifested by conduct or communications, support liability for conspiracy; agreement can be inferred from consistent circumstantial evidence and the parties' concerted actions.

Court Disposition

1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th accused convicted of conspiracy (first charge); 3rd accused acquitted and discharged on first charge; 1st and 6th accused convicted on second charge (conspiracy to obstruct public justice); 6th accused convicted on third charge (act with intent to impede prosecution under s.90 CPO).