Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of foreign depositions

Legal area

Court

15 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

The court held that prior first instance rulings are not binding at a retrial though they are persuasive; refused the defence application for an early joint opening because no special or unusual circumstances were shown; invited the prosecution to call or tender Messrs Cross and Knight as their earlier credibility concerns did not justify exclusion; declined to require the prosecution to call Messrs Wu or Aggarwal given prosecutor discretion and unreliability/unavailability concerns; ruled that Schedule 6 CPO does not authorize admission of the 2016 deposition transcript where the witness did…
16 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 121
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2016

The Court held the convictions were safe: the counts alleged an agreement to defraud (agreement is the crime) and particulars (a)–(e) described means/overt acts rather than separate essential ingredients, so the indictment was not impermissibly duplicitous; the trial judge fairly instructed the jury (including directions that favored defendants) and properly admitted New Zealand business records and parts of the deposition after finding attendance was not reasonably practicable and that admission would not cause unfairness; documentary and email evidence supported findings that all three appe…
9 May 2017

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as Yu Wenjie) (alias Eric Yee)

Citation

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as Yu Wenjie) (alias Eric Yee)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2016

The court concluded there was no reasonable arguable error in the trial judge’s admission of the business records produced by the New Zealand witness and in her finding that it was not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; however, because of potential ambiguity about the 3rd applicant’s understanding of the New Zealand hearing and unresolved issues about his asserted impecuniosity, it was reasonably arguable that admission of parts of the deposition beyond production of business records could be erroneous. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused for grounds 3 and 10 and for…
24 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC60/2013

The court held that the trial judge applied the s 77F(1)(d) test to the specific facts and properly concluded that no unfairness was likely; the issue was fact dependent and did not constitute a point of law of great and general importance, so certification under s 32(2) Cap.484 was refused.
31 Oct 2005

MA ZHUJIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

MA ZHUJIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL129/2005

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the criminal trial was at its final stage and the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances to justify interrupting the trial; an adequate alternative remedy by appeal exists; it is premature and inappropriate for the Court of First Instance to supervise the Deputy Judge's decisions before he has given reasons for them, and the applicant's complaints are matters properly addressed on appeal.
26 Jul 2001

EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER v. HKSAR

Citation

EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC12/2001

The Court certified as reasonably arguable and of great and general importance the question whether the judge's direction permitting conviction for 'having shown' favour when the indictment alleged only 'showing' could amount to misdirection and granted leave to appeal on that point and alternatively on substantial and grave injustice; all other points were held not reasonably arguable or not material to the sole count of conviction and certification/leave was refused for them.
19 Mar 2001

HKSAR v. EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER

Citation

HKSAR v. EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC147/2000

The court refused leave to appeal because the conviction on count 1 was safe: count 1 presented unique and cogent circumstantial evidence (direct physical transfer of cash and blank cheques, furtive conduct, and links into Honeywell) from which a reasonable jury properly directed could infer acceptance of a bribe; the judge's directions (including on s11(1), on inferences from circumstantial evidence, and on the defendant's silence) were legally correct and fair; foreign depositions admitted under Evidence Ordinance ss77E-G/77F were properly received and in any event were irrelevant to count…
15 May 1998

HKSAR v. LIU SUNG WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU SUNG WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/1997

Despite certain procedural shortcomings (notably absence of the formal certificate and the avoidable appointment of a prosecutor as joint commissioner), the Court found the defects were not material and did not produce unfairness; the judge correctly exercised his discretion under s.77F, the depositions were properly admitted, the convictions were supported by evidence and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
1 Nov 1969

RE HO KIN WAH

Citation

RE HO KIN WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP163/1969

The court held that the committals must be supported only in respect of the second charge: the Crown's failure to prove the Governor's authority and the statutory arrangements before the magistrate was cured by affidavits called by the Full Court under section 8(4); the first charge did not constitute a "relevant offence" under section 3(1)(c) and therefore could not support committal; the documentary evidence admitted was properly authenticated and admissible and did not render the committals unsafe; warrants contained amendable defects which the court ordered corrected.