HKSAR v. MUSAH HAKEEM TAHIRU

HKSAR v. MUSAH HAKEEM TAHIRU

The judge refused the severance application because he was not satisfied there was a special feature rendering a joint trial prejudicial or embarrassing: the evidence against the defendant differs materially from that presented against co-accused (notably large quantity of drugs, numerous empty bags and substantial cash found at his residence), any overlap can be tested at trial, and criticisms in the District Court arose from different evidence and do not automatically mandate separate trials, so the interests of justice require trial on all six counts together.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1360
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant/applicant: Musah Hakeem Tahiru
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Case Number
HCCC464/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Severance Application / Pre Trial (application Under S23(3) Cap 227)
Outcome
Severance application refused
Legal Topics
Severance/joinder, Joint Enterprise, Identification Evidence, Search and Seizure, Proceeds of Crime
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Severance/joinder Joint Enterprise Identification Evidence Search and Seizure Proceeds of Crime

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Musah Hakeem Tahiru

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Severance Application / Pre Trial (application Under S23(3) Cap 227)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order separate trials under section 23(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the defendant would be prejudiced or embarrassed by joinder given co-accused were tried separately and acquitted on Counts 1-4
  3. 3 Whether criticisms of prosecution surveillance and identification evidence in prior proceedings necessitate severance

Ratio Decidendi

The judge refused the severance application because he was not satisfied there was a special feature rendering a joint trial prejudicial or embarrassing: the evidence against the defendant differs materially from that presented against co-accused (notably large quantity of drugs, numerous empty bags and substantial cash found at his residence), any overlap can be tested at trial, and criticisms in the District Court arose from different evidence and do not automatically mandate separate trials, so the interests of justice require trial on all six counts together.

Court Disposition

Severance application refused

Orders

  • Severance application refused
  • Defendant to be tried on all six counts of the indictment