HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

Statements by Cheng are admissible to be elicited from the police officer because they are tendered to show that those statements were made (a consistent family account and state of mind) and not to prove the truth of the facts asserted; statements by Wong that would be tendered to prove the truth that the mother instructed lies are inadmissible hearsay and will not be elicited.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1416
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: WONG Wing-man, Mandy alias WANG Xuexin; 2nd Defendant: LING Yiu-chung, Rocky
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 2018
Case Number
HCCC76/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Third Party Statements at Hearing
Outcome
Allowed in part: statements of Cheng admissible; statements of Wong not admissible for proving truth
Legal Topics
Hearsay Rule, Perverting the Course of Public Justice, Joint Enterprise, Admissibility of Statements by Third Parties, State of Mind Evidence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Hearsay Rule Perverting the Course of Public Justice Joint Enterprise Admissibility of Statements by Third Parties State of Mind Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

WONG Wing-man, Mandy alias WANG Xuexin

1st Defendant

LING Yiu-chung, Rocky

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Third Party Statements at Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made to a police officer by the defendants' twin daughters are admissible despite being hearsay
  2. 2 Whether those statements are being tendered to prove the truth of their contents or merely to prove that the statements were made (state of mind or consistent account)
  3. 3 Whether the statements constitute declarations in furtherance of a joint enterprise relevant to Count 3 (perverting the course of public justice)

Ratio Decidendi

Statements by Cheng are admissible to be elicited from the police officer because they are tendered to show that those statements were made (a consistent family account and state of mind) and not to prove the truth of the facts asserted; statements by Wong that would be tendered to prove the truth that the mother instructed lies are inadmissible hearsay and will not be elicited.

Court Disposition

Allowed in part: statements of Cheng admissible; statements of Wong not admissible for proving truth

Orders

  • Statements of Cheng may be elicited from the police officer (DPC 6525 Lui Ka Chun) on cross-examination.
  • Statements of Wong may not be elicited from the police officer where they would be tendered to prove the truth that the mother instructed them to lie.