Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of co‑conspirator statements

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2007

MO YUK PING v. HKSAR

Citation

MO YUK PING v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC2/2007

The Court granted leave to appeal only on the certified constitutional point: whether the elements of conspiracy to defraud meet the requirement of legal certainty; the Court upheld the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify the other points and found no basis to grant leave on the substantial and grave injustice ground, nor to permit an appeal against the conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
9 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. MO YUK PING

Citation

HKSAR v. MO YUK PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC26/2006

The Court certified only the first proposed question: whether the offence of conspiracy to defraud is formulated with sufficient precision to satisfy 'prescribed by law' in the Basic Law and 'according to law' in the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Court declined to certify the remaining questions because they were either fact-specific, constituted an attack on the Court's analysis of the trial judge's reasons, or were otherwise unsuitable for certification under s32(2).
14 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. KANJANAPAS CHONG KWONG, DEREK AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. KANJANAPAS CHONG KWONG, DEREK AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC298/2005

Judge found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that D1, D2 and D3 conspired to pervert the course of public justice by coordinated steps (access attempts, habeas corpus application and publicity) taken with knowledge or belief that the access/application was sham and intended to influence a potential ICAC witness; D2 was guilty of attempted perjury because the affirmation contained material false statements she knew or did not believe to be true (despite procedural defects in administration); D4 was acquitted on the principal conspiracy and the separate conspiracy to disclose WPP…
12 Jan 2006

CHAU PING WAH EDDY v. HKSAR

Citation

CHAU PING WAH EDDY v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC82/2005

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the co-conspirators ground was not reasonably arguable and had not been raised earlier, and because independent evidence (documents in the 1st defendant's application, the applicant's presence and conduct at the FSD workshop inspection, and his cautioned statement) was sufficient to justify the magistrate's inference beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant knowingly participated in the conspiracy, so no substantial and grave injustice was shown.
8 Dec 2005

HKSAR v. MO YUK PING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. MO YUK PING AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC636/2005

On the evidence as a whole the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that (i) there were separate conspiracies to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in Shanghai Land shares (June 1 2002–May 31 2003) and to maintain the market/price to protect Bank of China interests (March–May 2003); (ii) key accused (D1 and D2) participated in and directed acts in furtherance of those agreements (opening/using nominee accounts, funding, directing trading, arranging deposits and destruction of documents); (iii) dishonesty was established under the Ghosh test and the requisite inte…
18 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. SHEK FU WING

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEK FU WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC51/2004

The trial judge properly assessed the evidence specific to the applicant, accepted unchallenged witness testimony that he was introduced and represented as a boss/cousin, and correctly inferred from his directorship, continuous attendance and the fabrication of Mr Ling that he agreed to play the role knowing the plans were fraudulent; there is no basis to overturn the conviction and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 Sept 2003

HKSAR v. CHENG SUI WA

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG SUI WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC223/2001

The Court upheld the convictions: the trial judge properly exercised her role in admitting and directing on co-conspirator evidence (judge decides preliminary admissibility per Ahern), the Ghosh direction as a whole was adequate in context, the lies direction was not prejudicially deficient, the application to admit fresh evidence under s83V was refused because the evidence lacked credibility and no reasonable explanation was given for its non-production at trial, and the convictions therefore stand; the Court adjusted sentence on totality grounds, reducing the global term from nine to eight…
29 Aug 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC523/2002

The convictions were upheld because, on the agreed facts and evidence, the applicant as a director and shareholder signed or co-signed the principal documents integral to the bogus letters of credit and the absence of any genuine business records permitted the irresistible inference that he knew of and participated in the conspiracy; the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof.
25 Mar 1998

HKSAR v. GEOFFREY NIGEL BOOTH

Citation

HKSAR v. GEOFFREY NIGEL BOOTH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC364/1997

There was sufficient independent prima facie evidence of a common design between Booth and Reid to use Reid's affidavit and to take steps to secure and retain C.H. Low's acquiescence; therefore Reid's statements in Singapore and subsequent telephone conversations are admissible where they are shown to be in furtherance of that common design. The fact that some acts involved third parties or formed sub-conspiracies does not preclude admissibility. The taped telephone conversations are admissible because their probative value is not outweighed by prejudicial effect, subject to appropriate jury…
18 Apr 1997

R. v. THIRLWELL JAMES MARIO and Another

Citation

R. v. THIRLWELL JAMES MARIO and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC332/1996

The Court held the trial judge had properly evaluated and cautioned himself about accomplice evidence, that s.60 Cap.221 abrogates the old corroboration requirement for alleged accomplices (including those who pleaded guilty), that the accomplices' interlocking evidence and independent corroboration made the conspiracy proven beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the appellants' applications to appeal against conviction were dismissed.