THE QUEEN v. TANG BOON PIAK

THE QUEEN v. TANG BOON PIAK

Appeal allowed because, once the cautioned statements were excluded, the remaining circumstantial evidence did not permit only one reasonable inference of guilt; conviction was therefore unsafe and had to be set aside.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. TANG BOON PIAK
Parties
Appellant: TANG BOON PIAK; Respondent: THE QUEEN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 1988
Case Number
HCMA963/1988
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction (hearing and Judgment 2 December 1988)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction on Charge B quashed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Circumstantial Evidence, Admissibility of Cautioned Statements, Burden of Proof, Transfer of Travel Documents
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Immigration Law Evidence Forgery Circumstantial Evidence Admissibility of Cautioned Statements Burden of Proof Transfer of Travel Documents

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TANG BOON PIAK

Appellant

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction (hearing and Judgment 2 December 1988)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to convict of forgery
  2. 2 Admissibility and effect of cautioned statements excluded at voir dire
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial evidence permitted only one reasonable inference of guilt

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because, once the cautioned statements were excluded, the remaining circumstantial evidence did not permit only one reasonable inference of guilt; conviction was therefore unsafe and had to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction on Charge B quashed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and conviction on Charge B set aside