Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of admissions

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI FUNG (Previously known as CHEUNG KING SHING)

Citation

[2026] HKCA 996
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC22/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had not relied on the right of silence (he made admissions and gave inconsistent accounts), the judge gave correct and adequate directions about admissions and the right of silence, cross‑examination on his prior statements was permissible, and the absence of his DNA on the packages was a neutral matter for the jury; no arguable miscarriage of justice was shown.
27 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴唐偉德

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA443/2023

The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility and factual findings because CCTV and witness evidence supported the finding that the appellant intentionally damaged the rainwater pipe and external wall and his defences (necessity, ownership, lawful works) were not established; therefore the three convictions for criminal damage under Cap.200 s60(1) are safe and must be affirmed.
19 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHAN HO KWAI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 86
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/2021

The admitted statements and video-recorded interview together with the evidence at trial were sufficient for a jury to convict on the knowledge element; the procedural complaints (non-calling of PW2, absence of a lies direction, presence of PW3, and the adjournment) caused no demonstrable prejudice and did not render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
12 Oct 2022

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SHUN SING TRADING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP41/2021

Defendant failed to particularise or present credible evidence of a triable issue: the plaintiff's contemporaneous documentary evidence and sworn test-purchase attestations were sufficient to establish sale and dealing in infringing products, and the challenge to admissibility of the admission was unsupported; accordingly summary judgment is appropriate and granted to the plaintiff.
29 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴袁格詩

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA88/2021

The appellate court upheld the conviction because, notwithstanding exclusion of involuntary admissions, independent credible evidence (firefighter's testimony and photographs) and findings about the appellant's control of the flat and possession of the items established beyond reasonable doubt that she was the person in charge and had permitted the fire hazard to recur; the HK$10,000 fine was within lawful sentencing discretion and not manifestly excessive.
8 Jul 2021

香港特別行政區訴李再榮

Citation

[2021] HKCA 985
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC154/2020

Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the single judge concluded the trial judge may have inadequately considered the co‑accused’s motive to lie and there were arguable errors in the trial judge’s reliance on the applicant’s uncautioned remark and in the overall evaluation of credibility, creating an arguable basis for appellate review.
14 May 2018

HKSAR v. Butt Muhammad ATEEQ

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1258
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA13/2018

Because the Magistrate excluded the appellant's oral admission as unsafe and gave no adequate explanation why PC5018's related evidence of finding the identity card on the appellant could nonetheless be safely relied upon, the appellate judge was not satisfied the conviction was safe and quashed the conviction.
26 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. CHUNG CHEUK PANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG CHEUK PANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2016

Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the judge's specific findings (paras 114 and 116) could reasonably be argued to have improperly influenced assessment of police credibility in a case resting largely on admissions obtained by police; leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the overall sentence of 21 months was not reasonably arguable as manifestly excessive given the facts and the judge's adjustments.
20 May 2015

F v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER

Citation

F v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2555/2010

The court refused to admit the Admitted Facts because they related to a separate 2012 incident and a bind-over (not a conviction), were not directly relevant to the 2007 allegations, risked opening collateral factual disputes and were more prejudicial than probative; the defendant should have sought specific discovery if it believed the documents were relevant; supplemental psychiatric comments addressing those facts were inadmissible as usurping the court's role; accordingly the application was rejected and the supplemental reports expunged with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
22 Jan 2015

HKSAR V. RIASAT ALI

Citation

HKSAR V. RIASAT ALI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA300/2014

The magistrate properly accepted the police and CCTV evidence and the appellant's verbal admissions as made in Cantonese and understood; that evidence established that the appellant and his codefendant acted in concert to steal four cans of milk powder, and therefore the prosecution proved theft beyond reasonable doubt; the High Court will not disturb those findings and dismisses the appeal.