Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of confessional statements

Legal area

Court

6 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. LU XIUYU

Citation

HKSAR v. LU XIUYU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA841/2011

The magistrate erred by making an actual finding that the appellant had made the admission at the admissibility stage rather than assuming it had been made; because the Record of Interview was the sole evidence against the appellant and she denied it, the error was material and rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting allowing the appeal; after balancing factors a retrial was refused.
21 Dec 1995

R. v. TSUI SIU PING

Citation

R. v. TSUI SIU PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC585/1995

The judge correctly admitted the cautioned statements after hearing evidence, the conviction on the weapons and attempted wounding charges was safe on the basis of the prosecution evidence, and the aggregate sentence of four years was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was therefore dismissed.
23 Feb 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YUI MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YUI MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC36/1988

Consecutive sentences were proper for the separate burglaries but the aggregate of 4 years was excessive for a 23‑year‑old first offender; reduction of the third charge from 2 years to 1 year 9 months (making total 3 years 9 months) was required to achieve a just total sentence.
13 May 1987

THE QUEEN v. OR SAI-POR

Citation

THE QUEEN v. OR SAI-POR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA191/1987

Although the magistrate's record contained deficiencies and he made provisional handwritten observations (including the word 'evasive'), those defects did not produce prejudice or a miscarriage of justice; provisional impressions by a magistrate are permissible if not treated as final conclusions; the record shortcomings did not justify overturning the convictions, and the appeal was dismissed.
22 Jan 1985

THE QUEEN v. HO CHUN-CHAU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HO CHUN-CHAU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR17/1984

Convictions affirmed; the magistrate erred in principle by imposing a global sentence but the sentences were not manifestly inadequate. The court varied the sentence: for each of the three convictions six months imprisonment to run concurrently, suspended for two years, and fines of HKD 600 on counts (a) and (b) and HKD 800 on count (c). This correction remedies the sentencing error while respecting the sentencing discretion.
19 Sept 1984

THE QUEEN v. NIRMAL KUMAR VYAS AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NIRMAL KUMAR VYAS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC258/1984

D1's answer to charge was admissible: timing between inadmissible statements and an imperfect interpreter did not render it involuntary and the trial judge was entitled to admit it. D2's conviction was unsafe: the trial judge erred in disregarding D2's photographic identification of Chief Inspector Chan and failed properly to assess the consequential evidential gap; because the conviction relied mainly on the confessional statement that gap rendered the conviction unsafe and it must be quashed.
5 Jul 1984

THE QUEEN v. NG WAI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG WAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA274/1984

The Magistrate was entitled to find a continuous course of bribery over the stated period, the appellant's recorded statement was properly admitted and corroborated the lay evidence, and there was no misapplication of judicial discretion or oppressive conduct warranting exclusion, so the conviction was safely upheld.
16 Jul 1983

THE QUEEN v. WONG KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC732/1983

Because particulars were given alleging threats and inducements and the Crown failed to call evidence from the officers alleged to have delivered them, and because there were significant breaches of the Judges' Rules in the taking of lengthy question-and-answer interviews, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confessional statements were freely and voluntarily made; the statements were therefore inadmissible and convictions based solely on them could not stand.
13 Oct 1980

YIP TAK SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YIP TAK SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC706/1980

The magistrate's implicit finding that the cautioned statement was given freely and voluntarily, together with corroborative volunteered admissions, provided ample evidence to support the conviction; ambiguous, unpursued allegations of police assault and absence of explicit findings did not render the conviction unsafe.