Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of police interviews

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2025

律政司司長訴何永恒

Citation

[2025] HKCA 801
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC123/2024

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly found the CCTV exhibits authentic and sufficient to support conviction for count 2 after assessing working copies, original media and screenshots; the judge properly exercised discretion to exclude parts of the recorded interviews where there was a real risk of unfairness given the defendant's apparent wish to remain silent. However, the trial judge failed to adequately analyse the CCTV evidence on counts 3 and 4 and thus the acquittals were unsafe; the acquittals were set aside and those counts were remitted for trial before another Dis…
5 Sept 2025

香港特別行政區訴何志豪及另四人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 769
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC34/2023

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to admit and rely on D2's cautioned statements and to make the factual inferences supporting convictions for D2, D4, D6 and D7 on the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence; however, the late post-evidence addition of a riot charge against D3 created unfairness not cured by available remedies and the conviction and sentence on that added charge must be quashed.
30 May 2008

HKSAR v. WONG SHUK FONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SHUK FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1225/2007

The magistrate erred by asking the appellant why she had not told the police to ask Manager Chan and by relying on her failure to mention Chan as undermining her credibility; that reliance infringed the appellant's right to silence, rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the case remitted for retrial.
16 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. ZENG LIANG XIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ZENG LIANG XIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC1/1997

When the applicant's interview is read in context the so‑called 'crucial passage' evidences deliberation (he waited, feared a false accusation, then decided to chop the victim) rather than a loss of self‑control; therefore there was no evidence to satisfy the threshold in s4 and provocation should not have been left to the jury; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is refused; additionally s32(2) is construed so that certification by the lower court applies only to the point‑of‑law limb.

Hong Kong Case Law

律政司司長 訴 何永恒

香港特別行政區 訴 何志豪及另四人

HKSAR v. WONG SHUK FONG

HKSAR v. ZENG LIANG XIN

律政司司長訴何永恒

香港特別行政區訴何志豪及另四人