香港特別行政區 訴 招金發

香港特別行政區 訴 招金發

Bail was refused because the conviction was supported by strong circumstantial evidence (two independent linkages to the same stolen vehicle over about a year) together with the applicant's admissions in a cautioned statement; the applicant's claim that the statement was fabricated was considered and rejected by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCA 344
Parties
Applicant: CHIU KAM FAT (招金發); Respondent: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 March 2019
Case Number
CACC99/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Bail Application During Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
bail refused
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Confessional Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Absence of CCTV, Family Hardship
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Bail Appeal Evidence Bail Pending Appeal Confessional Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Absence of CCTV +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIU KAM FAT (招金發)

Applicant

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal; Bail Application During Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bail should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the cautioned statement/confession was fabricated or admissible
  3. 3 Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong to justify refusal of bail

Ratio Decidendi

Bail was refused because the conviction was supported by strong circumstantial evidence (two independent linkages to the same stolen vehicle over about a year) together with the applicant's admissions in a cautioned statement; the applicant's claim that the statement was fabricated was considered and rejected by the trial judge and no error was shown; absence of CCTV did not undermine the sufficiency of the other evidence; family hardship is not a proper basis for granting bail pending appeal.

Court Disposition

bail refused

Orders

  • Application for bail pending appeal refused