HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND OTHERS

Section 16 discharge was unavailable because both defendants had already been arraigned and the amended indictment did not alter the relevant counts; the court must assess the sufficiency of evidence by reference to the committal bundle as filed, and on that material there was a prima facie case against both defendants; accordingly s.16 applications were dismissed and severance was refused, prejudice being manageable by agreed redactions and jury directions.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 566
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: Yim Yu Hang; 2nd Defendant: Chow Ching Yin; 3rd Defendant: Wong Wai Ho
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2019
Case Number
HCCC149/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial S.16 Discharge/no Case to Answer Application
Outcome
s.16 discharge applications dismissed; applications for severance refused; trial to proceed jointly with redactions and jury directions; reporting of these proceedings prohibited until trial conclusion or further order
Legal Topics
Section 16 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, No Case to Answer (galbraith), Perverting the Course of Public Justice, Handling Stolen Goods, Arraignment, Redaction of Evidence, Videorecorded Interview Admissibility, Severance of Trials
Source Language
EN
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Trial Severance Section 16 Criminal Procedure Ordinance No Case to Answer (galbraith) Perverting the Course of Public Justice Handling Stolen Goods +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Yim Yu Hang

1st Defendant

Chow Ching Yin

2nd Defendant

Wong Wai Ho

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial S.16 Discharge/no Case to Answer Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.16 discharge application is available after arraignment when indictment unchanged
  2. 2 Whether evidence in the committal bundle discloses a prima facie case against the defendants
  3. 3 Proper timing and test for a no case to answer submission (Galbraith)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 16 discharge was unavailable because both defendants had already been arraigned and the amended indictment did not alter the relevant counts; the court must assess the sufficiency of evidence by reference to the committal bundle as filed, and on that material there was a prima facie case against both defendants; accordingly s.16 applications were dismissed and severance was refused, prejudice being manageable by agreed redactions and jury directions.

Court Disposition

s.16 discharge applications dismissed; applications for severance refused; trial to proceed jointly with redactions and jury directions; reporting of these proceedings prohibited until trial conclusion or further order

Orders

  • s.16 discharge applications dismissed against Yim Yu Hang and Wong Wai Ho
  • Application for severance of trial of Yim Yu Hang from Wong Wai Ho refused; defendants to be tried jointly on the relevant counts