HKSAR v. WONG HOI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. WONG HOI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

The trial judge properly directed the jury to consider each accused and each count separately; the accomplice's testimony, although requiring caution, was corroborated by independent evidence (the axe in D2's car, surveillance placing D1 with the accomplice, telephone records, and D1's unexplained payment) which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. WONG HOI CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant / Defendant: Wong Hoi-chung; 2nd Applicant / Defendant: Wong Chi-hung; Respondent / Prosecution: Department of Justice (Respondent)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2006
Case Number
CACC168/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Leave to Appeal (applications Dismissed)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Murder, Conspiracy to Rob, Accomplice Evidence, Jury Directions, Sentencing
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Appeal Evidence Conspiracy Robbery Murder Conspiracy to Rob Accomplice Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Hoi-chung

1st Applicant / Defendant

Wong Chi-hung

2nd Applicant / Defendant

Department of Justice (Respondent)

Respondent / Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Leave to Appeal (applications Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury verdicts were inconsistent and rendered convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict D2 of conspiracy to rob
  3. 3 Whether the judge's summing up on joint enterprise, common intention and conspiracy was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly directed the jury to consider each accused and each count separately; the accomplice's testimony, although requiring caution, was corroborated by independent evidence (the axe in D2's car, surveillance placing D1 with the accomplice, telephone records, and D1's unexplained payment) which made the convictions on robbery (D1) and conspiracy (D1 and D2) safe; no misdirection on joint enterprise/conspiracy justified interference; sentencing for D2 was within acceptable range given the aggravated nature of the planned offence.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction dismissed for D1 and D2
  • Application for leave to appeal against D1's sentence not pursued and formally dismissed