Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of statements

Legal area

Court

25 Jun 2025

HKSAR v. CHOI WING KA

Citation

[2025] HKCA 599
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC222/2023

Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the CCTV ground was not reasonably arguable given trial conduct (defence did not raise or pursue the camera issue at trial, there was no evidence of a recording function, and the jury were properly directed); leave to appeal against sentence was granted out of time because subsequent authoritative guidance (Huang Ruifang) would materially reduce the appropriate starting point for sentence and refusal would deny a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal in the interests of justice, and an appeal aid certificate was granted.
17 May 2023

香港特別行政區訴梁仲文及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 590
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC722/2021

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contested records and video interviews were given voluntarily and were admissible. The police complied with custody and interview procedures, officers were credible, the defendant's evidence was not credible on contested points, and there was no demonstration that detention conditions or police conduct rendered the interviews unfair.
19 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴黎明耀

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1217
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC41/2022

The appellate judge held that the trial judge correctly found the admissions were voluntary and corroborated, that the defence medical evidence did not establish police assault or undermine voluntariness, and that the father's role was appropriate; therefore there was no arguable ground of error in admitting or relying upon the confessions and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was rightly refused.
20 May 2022

香港特別行政區訴馮奕鈞

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA38/2022

The trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence; the appellant's explanations were internally inconsistent and inherently implausible, his lies were indicative of concealment, and his act of hiding the wallet demonstrated the intention to appropriate such that, on the whole of the evidence, guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. AU KWAI SUN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1631
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC350/2019

Leave to appeal was granted because the Court found certain grounds to be reasonably arguable: principally the trial judge's refusal to admit the call record via the arresting officer without proper evidential foundation under s22A, the limitations placed on cross-examination about the post-record and right to decline interview, and interventions/comments by the judge during cross-examination and summing-up that could amount to unfair prejudice. Other grounds were rejected as not reasonably arguable because they raised matters for the jury or were supported by trial evidence and law.
29 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. TOE ELI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1588
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC120/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge, having viewed the video‑recorded interview, reasonably found the applicant had a good command of English and was not coached; that finding justified admitting the post‑recorded statement and interview and meant there was no demonstrated breach of BOR 11(2)(a) or BOR 22, no material unfairness, and no error in the judge's credibility assessments or application of Browne v Dunn.
12 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. YAYU MASIH

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3044
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC339/2020

Judge found prosecution witnesses credible, rejected accused's account of an inducement, concluded beyond reasonable doubt that no promise of release or inducement was made and that the video‑recorded interview was voluntary and therefore admissible.
1 Dec 2020

HKSAR v. KO WAI KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC252/2019

The court admitted the immediate verbal utterance by the 2nd accused as a voluntary statement given after an adequate caution and relevant to identity and presence; excluded the later post‑recorded statement while admitting investigative acts and evidence subsequent to it; admitted selected WhatsApp screenshots as reliable and admissible for the non‑hearsay purpose of inferring arrangements between the accused because matching entries across both parties' devices and judicial notice of WhatsApp usage establish prima facie reliability; and refused severance because the counts were properly joi…
25 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴梁志文

Citation

[2020] HKCA 775
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC277/2017

Because defence did not object to admission of the utterance at trial and in fact relied on it to attack police credibility, and because the trial judge gave comprehensive, balanced directions explaining that the utterance could relate either to the pocket drug or the large bag and required the jury to be satisfied as to its reference and truth before using it, the admission and consideration of the utterance, and the leaving of flight/struggle and cash evidence to the jury, were proper; the jury could reasonably infer the utterance related to the large quantity and the conviction is safe.
30 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 534
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC200/2018

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by both applicants refused because the alleged trial misdirections and evidential complaints were not reasonably arguable: the trial judge correctly admitted the statement after factual assessment, jury directions (including on circumstantial evidence and duress) were adequate with written directions before jury curing any oral slip, the photographs were admitted by agreement and properly directed upon, the perverting counts formed a distinct category justifying consecutive sequencing within totality, and proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy…