HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND ANOTHER

Evidence was tenuous and did not permit a reasonable jury properly directed to infer that the defendants caused deletion of data from the deceased's iPhone; allowing the count to go to the jury would invite speculation, therefore under R v Galbraith there is no case to answer on Count 2.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2861
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: YIM YU HANG; 2nd Defendant: CHOW CHING YIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2019
Case Number
HCCC149/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Prosecution Case; Ruling on Count 2
Outcome
No case to answer in relation to Count 2
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Public Justice, No Case to Answer (r V Galbraith), Electronic Evidence, Inference Versus Speculation
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Public Justice Perverting the Course of Public Justice No Case to Answer (r V Galbraith) Electronic Evidence Inference Versus Speculation

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

YIM YU HANG

1st Defendant

CHOW CHING YIN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Prosecution Case; Ruling on Count 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to support an inference that the defendants caused deletion of data from the deceased's iPhone
  2. 2 Whether WhatsApp messages and witness evidence provide a non‑speculative basis to convict for an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice
  3. 3 Whether the case should be stopped under the second limb of R v Galbraith due to tenuous evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence was tenuous and did not permit a reasonable jury properly directed to infer that the defendants caused deletion of data from the deceased's iPhone; allowing the count to go to the jury would invite speculation, therefore under R v Galbraith there is no case to answer on Count 2.

Court Disposition

No case to answer in relation to Count 2

Orders

  • Count 2 dismissed: No case to answer