HKSAR v. KHALIFA ABDUL NASSOR AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. KHALIFA ABDUL NASSOR AND OTHERS

There is no factual nexus connecting D1 and D3 in the prosecution's case beyond the common witness PW1; the evidence shows D1 and D3 acted separately and did not know each other in the relevant period, so joinder was improper and, in any event, severance was required to prevent prejudicial evidence from unfairly influencing each defendant's trial.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 1176
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant (d1): KHALIFA Abdul Nassor; Defendant (d2): EGINA Samson Samson; Defendant (d3): PANG Hing
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 September 2019
Case Number
DCCC928/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Severance Ruling (interlocutory)
Outcome
Trial of D1 severed from that of D3; severance ordered
Legal Topics
Joinder and Severance of Defendants, Obtaining Property by Deception, Use of Stolen Credit Cards, Witness Immunity, Prejudice to Fair Trial
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Theft Conspiracy Criminal Procedure Evidence Immigration Joinder and Severance of Defendants Obtaining Property by Deception +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

KHALIFA Abdul Nassor

Defendant (d1)

EGINA Samson Samson

Defendant (d2)

PANG Hing

Defendant (d3)

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Severance Ruling (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1 and D3 were properly joined in the same charge sheet
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order severance of trials
  3. 3 Whether joint trial would cause prejudice or embarrassment to either defendant due to PW1's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There is no factual nexus connecting D1 and D3 in the prosecution's case beyond the common witness PW1; the evidence shows D1 and D3 acted separately and did not know each other in the relevant period, so joinder was improper and, in any event, severance was required to prevent prejudicial evidence from unfairly influencing each defendant's trial.

Court Disposition

Trial of D1 severed from that of D3; severance ordered

Orders

  • Order that the trial of the 1st defendant (D1) be severed from the trial of the 3rd defendant (D3)
  • Reasons for the ruling to be handed down in writing