R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others

R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others

Where the only evidence linking each defendant to the offence are separate cautioned statements made individually, and there is no admissible evidence showing those statements refer to one and the same conspiracy, the cautioned statements cannot be used against co-defendants to establish a single joint conspiracy; accordingly there was no admissible evidence to support leaving the joint conspiracy count to the jury and no case to answer on that count.

Citation
R. v. CHAN LAP MAN, RAYMOND and Others
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Chan Lap-man, Raymond; Defendant: Lam Kam-fung; Defendant: Wong Tak-wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 1996
Case Number
HCCC373/1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Conspiracy to Commit Robbery / After Close of Prosecution Case; Submission of No Case to Answer; Ruling on Whether Joint Conspiracy Count Should Go to Jury
Outcome
Ruling: No admissible evidence that the three defendants were involved in the same conspiracy; no case to answer on the joint conspiracy count; the joint count will not be left to the jury.
Legal Topics
Cautioned Statement, Hearsay, Joint Enterprise/common Design, No Case to Answer, Duplicity
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Conspiracy Law Cautioned Statement Hearsay Joint Enterprise/common Design No Case to Answer +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Chan Lap-man, Raymond

Defendant

Lam Kam-fung

Defendant

Wong Tak-wah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Conspiracy to Commit Robbery / After Close of Prosecution Case; Submission of No Case to Answer; Ruling on Whether Joint Conspiracy Count Should Go to Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a cautioned statement of one defendant can be used as evidence of a single joint conspiracy involving co-defendants who did not adopt the statement
  2. 2 Whether the separate cautioned statements of three defendants can be linked as referring to one and the same conspiracy so as to sustain a single-count indictment against all three
  3. 3 Whether, on the evidence available, the joint conspiracy count should be left to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Where the only evidence linking each defendant to the offence are separate cautioned statements made individually, and there is no admissible evidence showing those statements refer to one and the same conspiracy, the cautioned statements cannot be used against co-defendants to establish a single joint conspiracy; accordingly there was no admissible evidence to support leaving the joint conspiracy count to the jury and no case to answer on that count.

Court Disposition

Ruling: No admissible evidence that the three defendants were involved in the same conspiracy; no case to answer on the joint conspiracy count; the joint count will not be left to the jury.

Orders

  • No case to answer on the single joint conspiracy count; the joint count is dismissed from being left to the jury.