THE QUEEN v. LAM SHING KIN

THE QUEEN v. LAM SHING KIN

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate, having accepted expert evidence that being a '426' required a promotion ceremony, did not demonstrate that he addressed whether the appellant's admission meant he had undergone that ceremony; failure to decide this material question rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LAM SHING KIN
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; Appellant: LAM Shing-kin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
HCMA908/1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Hearing and Judgment (supreme Court, Appellate Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Cautioned Statement, Proof of Office Bearer/membership in Triad, Voluntariness of Admission, Standard of Proof, Evaluation of Expert Evidence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Statutory Interpretation Organised Crime Law Admissibility of Cautioned Statement Proof of Office Bearer/membership in Triad Voluntariness of Admission Standard of Proof +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

LAM Shing-kin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appellate Hearing and Judgment (supreme Court, Appellate Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission in Exhibit P1 that appellant was a '426' was a sufficient admission to prove an offence under section 19 of the Societies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the admission was voluntarily made or made as a result of inducement
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate addressed the necessary factual question whether being a '426' required a promotion ceremony and therefore whether the admission corresponded to the fact alleged

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate, having accepted expert evidence that being a '426' required a promotion ceremony, did not demonstrate that he addressed whether the appellant's admission meant he had undergone that ceremony; failure to decide this material question rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed on charge relating to section 19 of the Societies Ordinance
  • Sentence set aside