HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

The photograph identification evidence was admissible because rule III(b) governs questioning of a charged suspect and was not engaged by identification of an absent defendant; the 2nd defendant was not questioned and had refused an identification parade; there was no infringement of his right to silence or fair trial and any prejudicial impact affects weight, not admissibility.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 309
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: CHAN Yiu-shing; 2nd Defendant: CHENG Wai-shing; 3rd Defendant: PENNELLI Rizzy; 4th Defendant: WU Kai-fu; 5th Defendant: MAN Ting-lock
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 February 2017
Case Number
HCCC41/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Identification Evidence (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to exclude the 2nd defendant's photograph identification evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Identification Parade, Photograph Identification, Right to Silence, Fair Trial, Rules and Directions 1992 Rule Iii(b)
Source Language
EN
Criminal Procedure Evidence Identification Proceedings Human Rights Identification Parade Photograph Identification Right to Silence Fair Trial +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHAN Yiu-shing

1st Defendant

CHENG Wai-shing

2nd Defendant

PENNELLI Rizzy

3rd Defendant

WU Kai-fu

4th Defendant

MAN Ting-lock

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Identification Evidence (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a photograph identification conducted after an indictment breaches Rules and Directions 1992 rule III(b)
  2. 2 Whether admission of the photograph identification infringes the 2nd defendant's right to silence
  3. 3 Whether the prejudicial effect of the photograph identification outweighs its probative value so as to render it inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

The photograph identification evidence was admissible because rule III(b) governs questioning of a charged suspect and was not engaged by identification of an absent defendant; the 2nd defendant was not questioned and had refused an identification parade; there was no infringement of his right to silence or fair trial and any prejudicial impact affects weight, not admissibility.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude the 2nd defendant's photograph identification evidence refused.

Orders

  • Photograph identification evidence obtained on 5 January 2017 is admissible at trial.