HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

On the facts the court was satisfied police were conducting general inquiries with an open mind and had not at that stage gathered reasonable grounds to suspect the 1st defendant; officers denied any oppressive conduct, the statement was read and explained to her despite her limited ability to read traditional Chinese, and there was no basis to exclude it for unfairness. Therefore the statement dated 12 August 2015 was voluntary and admissible.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1415
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: WONG Wing-man, Mandy alias WANG Xuexin; 2nd Defendant: LING Yiu-chung, Rocky
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2018
Case Number
HCCC76/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Hearing (admissibility Ruling)
Outcome
The 1st defendant's witness statement dated 12 August 2015 is admissible.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Statement, Voluntariness, Cautioning, Oppression, Perverting Course of Public Justice, Cruelty to a Child
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Child Protection Admissibility of Statement Voluntariness Cautioning Oppression Perverting Course of Public Justice +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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

WONG Wing-man, Mandy alias WANG Xuexin

1st Defendant

LING Yiu-chung, Rocky

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Hearing (admissibility Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant's witness statement dated 12 August 2015 was voluntary
  2. 2 Whether the failure to administer a caution to the 1st defendant rendered the statement inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether discrepancy in treatment between 1st and 2nd defendants affected admissibility

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the court was satisfied police were conducting general inquiries with an open mind and had not at that stage gathered reasonable grounds to suspect the 1st defendant; officers denied any oppressive conduct, the statement was read and explained to her despite her limited ability to read traditional Chinese, and there was no basis to exclude it for unfairness. Therefore the statement dated 12 August 2015 was voluntary and admissible.

Court Disposition

The 1st defendant's witness statement dated 12 August 2015 is admissible.

Orders

  • Admit the 1st defendant's witness statement dated 12 August 2015 (exhibits PP23 and PP23A) into evidence.
  • Ruling that there is a case to answer.