HKSAR v. NG YAN KIN

HKSAR v. NG YAN KIN

The court refused the prosecution's application to call psychiatric experts in rebuttal after the close of the defence; the prosecution must call its psychiatric expert evidence within its own case absent good reason to split the case, and on these facts no such good reason existed because the issue was foreseeable and allowing rebuttal would unfairly give the prosecution the last word; the prosecution may revisit the application after hearing defence evidence.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2693
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant: Ng Yankin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Case Number
HCCC329/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder / Trial (application on Calling Rebuttal Expert Psychiatric Evidence)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Diminished Responsibility, Expert Evidence, Rebuttal Evidence, Burden of Proof, Splitting Prosecution Case, Ex Improviso Rule
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Mental Health Law Homicide Diminished Responsibility Expert Evidence Rebuttal Evidence Burden of Proof +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Ng Yankin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder / Trial (application on Calling Rebuttal Expert Psychiatric Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution may call psychiatric expert evidence in rebuttal after the close of the defence case
  2. 2 Whether psychiatric evidence on the defendant's mental state should be called in the prosecution's own case
  3. 3 Whether the evidence was foreseeable and whether there is good reason to permit splitting the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the prosecution's application to call psychiatric experts in rebuttal after the close of the defence; the prosecution must call its psychiatric expert evidence within its own case absent good reason to split the case, and on these facts no such good reason existed because the issue was foreseeable and allowing rebuttal would unfairly give the prosecution the last word; the prosecution may revisit the application after hearing defence evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Prosecution shall call its psychiatric expert evidence within its own case
  • Prosecution granted leave to revisit application to call rebuttal evidence after hearing the defence evidence