香港特別行政區 訴 莊曉斌
The court accepted police testimony, found no coercion or inducement, held the initial failure to remind of amendment rights was a procedural defect cured at the police station, concluded follow‑up prompts during the recorded interview did not amount to improper inducement, and found the defendant understood his rights and voluntarily confirmed the statements; accordingly the challenged written supplemental statement and video interview were admissible.
Source excerpt
- Admissibility of confession
- Voluntariness of statement
- Police interview rules
- Leading questions
- Remedial effect of procedural breaches