THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SAN-WAH

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SAN-WAH

The magistrate properly exercised his discretion to continue the trial despite the accidental suggestion of a prior conviction because no substantial prejudice resulted (it was later shown there was no conviction or suspended sentence), the relationship evidence was narrative and not relied upon, and the reference to the girlfriend's telephone call produced no substantive prejudicial matter; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. YEUNG SAN-WAH
Parties
Respondent (crown): THE QUEEN; Appellant/defendant: YEUNG San-wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 1986
Case Number
HCMA939/1986
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Conviction Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed
Legal Topics
Criminal Intimidation, Evidence, Trial Discretion, Disclosure of Prior Convictions
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Appeal Criminal Intimidation Evidence Trial Discretion Disclosure of Prior Convictions

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent (crown)

YEUNG San-wah

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Conviction Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accidental disclosure of a previous conviction (or alleged suspended sentence) required mistrial or retrial
  2. 2 Whether evidence of prior relationship between complainant and defendant was irrelevant and prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether re-examination reference to defendant's girlfriend's telephone call was improper and prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate properly exercised his discretion to continue the trial despite the accidental suggestion of a prior conviction because no substantial prejudice resulted (it was later shown there was no conviction or suspended sentence), the relationship evidence was narrative and not relied upon, and the reference to the girlfriend's telephone call produced no substantive prejudicial matter; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence affirmed