HKSAR v. BALAKRISHNAN MAHENDRAN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. BALAKRISHNAN MAHENDRAN AND ANOTHER

The court refused to order a joint trial in absentia because substantial prejudice to the present defendant (D2) from admission of the absent defendant's (D1) video‑recorded statements would likely prevent a fair trial; however, the court concluded it was proper to try D1 alone in absentia and exercised its discretion to permit a separate absentia trial of D1.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 300
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: BALAKRISHNAN MAHENDRAN; 2nd Defendant: ADJEI ROBERT (also known as ADJEI KING)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 February 2021
Case Number
HCCC2/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Kidnapping/forcible Detention for Ransom / Application and Ruling on Trial in Absentia (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to try D1 in absentia together with D2 refused; trial of D1 in absentia ordered to proceed separately; D2 to be tried on his own thereafter
Legal Topics
Trial in Absentia, Right to Be Present, Fair Trial, Joinder of Defendants, Prejudicial Hearsay (video‑recorded Interviews)
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Trial in Absentia Right to Be Present Fair Trial Joinder of Defendants Prejudicial Hearsay (video‑recorded Interviews)

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

BALAKRISHNAN MAHENDRAN

1st Defendant

ADJEI ROBERT (also known as ADJEI KING)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Kidnapping/forcible Detention for Ransom / Application and Ruling on Trial in Absentia (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may lawfully try a defendant in his absence
  2. 2 Whether a joint trial in absentia of an absent defendant with a present co-defendant would be unfair to the present defendant
  3. 3 Whether a trial of the absent defendant alone in absentia is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order a joint trial in absentia because substantial prejudice to the present defendant (D2) from admission of the absent defendant's (D1) video‑recorded statements would likely prevent a fair trial; however, the court concluded it was proper to try D1 alone in absentia and exercised its discretion to permit a separate absentia trial of D1.

Court Disposition

Application to try D1 in absentia together with D2 refused; trial of D1 in absentia ordered to proceed separately; D2 to be tried on his own thereafter

Orders

  • Application by prosecution to try 1st Defendant (D1) in absentia together with 2nd Defendant (D2) refused
  • Trial of 1st Defendant (D1) in his absence permitted to proceed separately