HKSAR v. CHAN MAN NA AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN NA AND OTHERS

There is a case for D1 to answer because the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, taken at its highest and drawing all reasonable inferences favourable to the prosecution, was capable of leading a reasonable jury properly directed to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that D1 participated in a joint enterprise to blackmail PW1.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHAN MAN NA AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: Chan Man Na; 2nd Defendant: Tse Yiu Ka; 3rd Defendant: Ho Sai Pong
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2016
Case Number
DCCC583/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
No case submission dismissed; there is a case for D1 to answer
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer, Circumstantial Evidence, Joint Enterprise, Blackmail, Inferences, Trial Judge Directions
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure No Case to Answer Circumstantial Evidence Joint Enterprise Blackmail Inferences +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Chan Man Na

1st Defendant

Tse Yiu Ka

2nd Defendant

Ho Sai Pong

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a case to answer for D1 on joint enterprise liability for blackmail
  2. 2 Proper approach to a no‑case submission where prosecution case is circumstantial
  3. 3 Whether the circumstantial evidence and inferences, taken most favourably to the prosecution, could allow a reasonable jury to convict

Ratio Decidendi

There is a case for D1 to answer because the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, taken at its highest and drawing all reasonable inferences favourable to the prosecution, was capable of leading a reasonable jury properly directed to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that D1 participated in a joint enterprise to blackmail PW1.

Court Disposition

No case submission dismissed; there is a case for D1 to answer

Orders

  • D1 to answer to the charges; trial to proceed