HKSAR v. HUI KA LOK, SAM

HKSAR v. HUI KA LOK, SAM

Count Two was severed because its evidence, being post-offence conduct, posed a real risk of prejudice that could lead a jury to infer guilt on the very serious Count One; severance was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to avoid undue complication and lengthening of proceedings.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3167
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant: HUI Ka-lok, Sam; Co Defendant: Hu Mingjie; Co Defendant: OCHOA VILLEGAS Luis Carlos; Co Defendant: John Andres Gomez Henad (also known as Mono); Co Defendant: LI Ka-kuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Case Number
HCCC148/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Attempted Drug Trafficking and Perverting the Course of Public Justice / Pre Arraignment Application to Amend Indictment and Ruling on Severance of Counts
Outcome
Second Count severed from the indictment and ordered to be tried separately after trial on Count One; proposed amendments to the indictment not opposed by defendant.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Indictment, Severance of Counts, Prejudicial Effect of Post Offence Conduct, Admissibility of Flight/lies Evidence, Jury Direction
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Amendment of Indictment Severance of Counts Prejudicial Effect of Post Offence Conduct Admissibility of Flight/lies Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

HUI Ka-lok, Sam

Defendant

Hu Mingjie

Co Defendant

OCHOA VILLEGAS Luis Carlos

Co Defendant

John Andres Gomez Henad (also known as Mono)

Co Defendant

LI Ka-kuen

Co Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Attempted Drug Trafficking and Perverting the Course of Public Justice / Pre Arraignment Application to Amend Indictment and Ruling on Severance of Counts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment could be amended to add dates and additional persons
  2. 2 Whether Count Two (perverting course of justice) should be tried jointly with Count One (attempting to traffic in a dangerous drug)
  3. 3 Whether evidence of post-offence conduct is so prejudicial that it should be excluded by severance

Ratio Decidendi

Count Two was severed because its evidence, being post-offence conduct, posed a real risk of prejudice that could lead a jury to infer guilt on the very serious Count One; severance was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to avoid undue complication and lengthening of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Second Count severed from the indictment and ordered to be tried separately after trial on Count One; proposed amendments to the indictment not opposed by defendant.

Orders

  • Count Two severed from the indictment and to be tried separately after the trial under Count One
  • Amendments to the indictment as proposed were recorded and not objected to by the defendant