香港特別行政區 訴 邱承建及另二人

香港特別行政區 訴 邱承建及另二人

On the surface evidence the prosecution established independent reasonable foundational evidence to apply the co-conspirator's rule to specified parts of PW1's testimony and to parts of the P69/P70 recordings (P69 items 244–435 / P70 items 9–198) for the purposes of counts 1 and 3; P68 and portions of the recordings and PW1 evidence that are not in furtherance were excluded. The ruling is a provisional admissibility decision based on surface evidence, not a final factual determination.

Citation
[2020] HKDC 1177
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; First Defendant: 邱承建; Second Defendant: 朱東麒 AARON; Third Defendant: 朱東恒 BYRON
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Case Number
DCCC1092/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Misconduct in Public Office and Theft / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling on Co Conspirator's Rule
Outcome
Prosecution's application to apply the co-conspirator's rule granted in part and refused in part on a provisional basis
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Co Conspirator's Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Misconduct in Public Office
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Evidence Public Corruption Administrative Law Conspiracy Co Conspirator's Rule Admissibility of Evidence Misconduct in Public Office

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

邱承建

First Defendant

朱東麒 AARON

Second Defendant

朱東恒 BYRON

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Misconduct in Public Office and Theft / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling on Co Conspirator's Rule

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the co-conspirator's rule applies to PW1's evidence
  2. 2 Whether ICAC recordings (P68, P69, P70) are admissible under the co-conspirator's rule
  3. 3 Whether independent foundational evidence exists as reasonable evidence to admit co-conspirator statements

Ratio Decidendi

On the surface evidence the prosecution established independent reasonable foundational evidence to apply the co-conspirator's rule to specified parts of PW1's testimony and to parts of the P69/P70 recordings (P69 items 244–435 / P70 items 9–198) for the purposes of counts 1 and 3; P68 and portions of the recordings and PW1 evidence that are not in furtherance were excluded. The ruling is a provisional admissibility decision based on surface evidence, not a final factual determination.

Court Disposition

Prosecution's application to apply the co-conspirator's rule granted in part and refused in part on a provisional basis

Orders

  • Apply co-conspirator's rule to specified parts of PW1's testimony as identified in the ruling and to P69 items 244–435 (equivalently P70 items 9–198) for counts 1 and 3
  • Refuse application of co-conspirator's rule to P68 and to parts of PW1's evidence and recordings found not to be in furtherance or lacking independent foundation