HKSAR v. YING JIM MING, JIMMY AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. YING JIM MING, JIMMY AND OTHERS

s.61(4) ICSO is not unconstitutional in principle and, on the facts, nondisclosure of interception product did not cause shown prejudice making a stay necessary; the magistrate properly conducted voir dire, admitted contested evidence lawfully, and reasonably found the accomplice witness CHU credible despite non-material discrepancies; the evidence sufficed to convict each appellant, so appeals dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v. YING JIM MING, JIMMY AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: YING Jim Ming, Jimmy; 2nd Appellant: KWONG Chiu Kiu; 3rd Appellant: CHAO Tak Kwong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2010
Case Number
HCMA432/2009
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (dismissal)
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.
Legal Topics
Corruption, Bribery, Interception of Communications, Disclosure Obligations, Witness Credibility, Immunity From Prosecution, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Corruption Bribery Interception of Communications Disclosure Obligations +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

YING Jim Ming, Jimmy

1st Appellant

KWONG Chiu Kiu

2nd Appellant

CHAO Tak Kwong

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.61(4) ICSO is unconstitutional and whether nondisclosure of interception product deprived appellants of a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate properly admitted contested interview/notebook evidence and assessed admissibility
  3. 3 Whether the accomplice (CHU) was a credible witness and whether discrepancies rendered convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

s.61(4) ICSO is not unconstitutional in principle and, on the facts, nondisclosure of interception product did not cause shown prejudice making a stay necessary; the magistrate properly conducted voir dire, admitted contested evidence lawfully, and reasonably found the accomplice witness CHU credible despite non-material discrepancies; the evidence sufficed to convict each appellant, so appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • Each appeal dismissed
  • Each conviction confirmed