HKSAR v. WONG LONG KI AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. WONG LONG KI AND OTHERS

Because D1's video-recorded interview contained extensive prejudicial material (including hearsay and duress explanations) that could not be redacted without injustice and which jury directions would not realistically eliminate, the only way to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice was to sever the trial so that D2 and D3 are tried separately from D1; by contrast, D4's interviews could be suitably redacted so D2 need not be severed from D4.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 565
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: WONG LONG KI; 2nd Defendant: YIM YU HANG; 3rd Defendant: CHOW CHING YIN; 4th Defendant: WONG WAI HO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2019
Case Number
HCCC149/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder and Related Offences / Severance Hearing and Ruling (pre Trial)
Outcome
Trial severed into two parts: first trial to try D2 and D3 for the murder of Bosco and to try the perverting the course of public justice charge against D2 and D4 together with the handling stolen goods charge against D4; second trial to try D1 for the murder of Bosco separately.
Legal Topics
Severance of Trial, Hearsay, Redaction of Evidence, Prejudice to Jury, Perverting the Course of Public Justice, Handling Stolen Goods, Duress
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Trial Procedure Jury Directions Severance of Trial Hearsay Redaction of Evidence Prejudice to Jury +3 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

WONG LONG KI

1st Defendant

YIM YU HANG

2nd Defendant

CHOW CHING YIN

3rd Defendant

WONG WAI HO

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder and Related Offences / Severance Hearing and Ruling (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of co-defendants should be severed
  2. 2 Whether the prejudicial content of a co-defendant's video-recorded interview can be redacted
  3. 3 Whether jury directions suffice to cure prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Because D1's video-recorded interview contained extensive prejudicial material (including hearsay and duress explanations) that could not be redacted without injustice and which jury directions would not realistically eliminate, the only way to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice was to sever the trial so that D2 and D3 are tried separately from D1; by contrast, D4's interviews could be suitably redacted so D2 need not be severed from D4.

Court Disposition

Trial severed into two parts: first trial to try D2 and D3 for the murder of Bosco and to try the perverting the course of public justice charge against D2 and D4 together with the handling stolen goods charge against D4; second trial to try D1 for the murder of Bosco separately.

Orders

  • Severance ordered: D2 and D3 to be tried together for murder; D1 to be tried separately for murder at a later stage; D2 and D4 not severed and to proceed with perverting the course of public justice charge and handling stolen goods charge as appropriate
  • Publication (in any form) of any report of the proceedings concerning the severance is prohibited until the conclusion of the trial or until further order