HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR , also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR , also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS

On the facts the investigating officers did not have subjective or objective reasonable grounds to treat D1 as a suspect at the time of the 22 December 2009 interview; both D1's witness statement (13 January 2010) and cautioned interview (14 November 2011) were voluntary and admissible; press material and D1's tax records are relevant and admissible; the documents seized from D5 were not prepared for legal advice and are not covered by legal professional privilege so the privilege claim is rejected.

Citation
HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR , also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: HUI Rafael Junior also known as HUI Si-yan Rafael; 2nd Defendant: KWOK Ping-kwong Thomas; 3rd Defendant: KWOK Ping-luen Raymond; 4th Defendant: CHAN Kui-yuen also known as Thomas CHAN; 5th Defendant: KWAN Francis Hung-sang also known as Francis KWAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2014
Case Number
HCCC98/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Corruption/indictment / Post Arraignment Pre Jury Voir Dire/applications on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Applications to exclude evidence largely dismissed; D1's statements admitted; press material and tax records admitted; D5 privileged claim rejected and documents admitted; one application (D5 oral statements) rendered unnecessary by prosecution limitation of evidence.
Legal Topics
Cautioning Under Rule II, Voluntariness of Statements, Residual Discretion to Exclude Evidence, Hearsay and Press Material, Search Warrants and Reasonable Grounds, Waiver and Scope of Legal Professional Privilege
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Anti Corruption Law Legal Professional Privilege Cautioning Under Rule II Voluntariness of Statements Residual Discretion to Exclude Evidence +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

HUI Rafael Junior also known as HUI Si-yan Rafael

1st Defendant

KWOK Ping-kwong Thomas

2nd Defendant

KWOK Ping-luen Raymond

3rd Defendant

CHAN Kui-yuen also known as Thomas CHAN

4th Defendant

KWAN Francis Hung-sang also known as Francis KWAN

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Corruption/indictment / Post Arraignment Pre Jury Voir Dire/applications on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ICAC should have cautioned D1 under Rule II prior to interview
  2. 2 Whether D1's witness statement (13 Jan 2010) and cautioned interview (14 Nov 2011) were voluntary and admissible
  3. 3 Whether press material is admissible and prejudicial hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the investigating officers did not have subjective or objective reasonable grounds to treat D1 as a suspect at the time of the 22 December 2009 interview; both D1's witness statement (13 January 2010) and cautioned interview (14 November 2011) were voluntary and admissible; press material and D1's tax records are relevant and admissible; the documents seized from D5 were not prepared for legal advice and are not covered by legal professional privilege so the privilege claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Applications to exclude evidence largely dismissed; D1's statements admitted; press material and tax records admitted; D5 privileged claim rejected and documents admitted; one application (D5 oral statements) rendered unnecessary by prosecution limitation of evidence.

Orders

  • D1's witness statement dated 13 January 2010 admitted into evidence
  • D1's cautioned interview dated 14 November 2011 admitted into evidence