THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KWAN MING AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KWAN MING AND OTHERS

The magistrate mis-evaluated the medical and testimonial evidence and was not entitled to infer a concocted confederation; because the statements were contested and the evidence was equally capable of an innocent construction, reasonable doubt remained and the convictions were unsafe, warranting quashing of convictions and setting aside sentences.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KWAN MING AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent (prosecution): THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant (2nd Defendant): YEUNG KWAN-MING; 2nd Appellant (2nd Defendant): IP CHI-MING; 3rd Appellant (4th Defendant): LEUNG KA-MING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 1993
Case Number
HCMA446/1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Conviction for Conspiracy to Steal) / Appellate Judgment of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Cautioned Statements, Voluntariness of Confessions, Inducement and Police Assault, Evaluation of Medical Evidence, Safety of Conviction
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Police Conduct Procedural Law Admissibility of Cautioned Statements Voluntariness of Confessions Inducement and Police Assault Evaluation of Medical Evidence +1 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent (prosecution)

YEUNG KWAN-MING

1st Appellant (2nd Defendant)

IP CHI-MING

2nd Appellant (2nd Defendant)

LEUNG KA-MING

3rd Appellant (4th Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Conviction for Conspiracy to Steal) / Appellate Judgment of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cautioned statements were voluntary and therefore admissible
  2. 2 Whether statements were obtained by threats, assault or inducement
  3. 3 Whether medical evidence supported defendants' claims of police assault

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate mis-evaluated the medical and testimonial evidence and was not entitled to infer a concocted confederation; because the statements were contested and the evidence was equally capable of an innocent construction, reasonable doubt remained and the convictions were unsafe, warranting quashing of convictions and setting aside sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Convictions quashed