Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissions against interest

Legal area

Court

18 Jan 2022

SZE KA WAI v. CHOY WAI KA

Citation

[2022] HKCA 74
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/2021

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the trial judge permissibly found on the evidence (including the defendant's admission on 8 January 2018 and the accepted testimony of the plaintiff) that an oral agreement/common intention existed that the defendant would hold his half share on trust for the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had funded the purchase; those findings were open to the judge and properly upheld on appeal.
18 May 2021

HKSAR v. LAU TING YIN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC174/2020

Judge found the police account credible and the defendant's account inherently improbable; on the balance of probabilities the statements at the doorway, after arrest and during the VRI were made voluntarily and are admissible; the VRI (P68) is admissible subject to appropriate editing.
27 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

Citation

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC164/2017

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the challenged admissions (verbal admission at Sha Tau Kok, the post‑record, and the video‑recorded interview and transcript) were voluntary; alleged threats, inducements and coaching were not established as having produced oppression; accused's transient illness did not render admissions involuntary; court declines to exclude admissions in exercise of discretion.
21 May 2012

香港特別行政區訴黃中正

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃中正
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA811/2011

The trial judge's detailed credibility findings and assessment of the evidence were reasonable and unassailable on appeal; eyewitness testimony and appellant's on-scene statements supported the theft conviction, appellant's depression was not raised with evidence at trial so could not vitiate the conviction on appeal, and the HK$5,000 fine for a first-time shoplifting offence was within an appropriate sentencing range and not manifestly excessive.
10 Dec 2008

MA MEE KIU AND OTHERS v. CHAU CHUN YUEN

Citation

MA MEE KIU AND OTHERS v. CHAU CHUN YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to show the trial judge was plainly wrong; the judge's acceptance of the Defendant's evidence (including corroborative admissions by the 2nd Plaintiff and credible hearsay from the sister) was justified, and the 10-year agreement was found to have discharged the buy-out agreement; capacity issues were immaterial to the outcome.
27 Nov 2008

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI KIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC102/2007

The court dismissed the leave applications: the trial judge applied the correct R v Ghosh test for dishonesty and properly found, on the factual findings that Vantage had no legitimate business and that the scheme (a ponzi/money planting scheme) was inevitably bound to collapse, that both Applicants knew the scheme was dishonest; the tape recording was admissible as res gestae and admissions and provided sufficient evidence to infer the 2nd Applicant's knowledge; the 1st Applicant's sentence of 4 years was appropriate and upheld.
27 Feb 2008

HKSAR v. LEE KING MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KING MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/2005

Although the unauthorised provision of the transcript to the accomplice was inappropriate, on the facts the irregularity did not render the conviction unsafe given the witness's voluntary admission of having seen the transcript, the continued existence of disparities, the jury having been warned and defence counsel's tactical choices; likewise the undercover officer's overheard conversation was admissible because the officer did not interrogate or prompt and the applicant's responsive remark amounted to an admission (exception to hearsay).

Hong Kong Case Law

SZE KA WAI v. CHOY WAI KA

HKSAR v. LAU TING YIN

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

香港特別行政區 訴 黃中正

MA MEE KIU AND OTHERS v. CHAU CHUN YUEN

HKSAR v. TSUI CHI KIN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LEE KING MAN

香港特別行政區訴黃中正