Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Co-accused statements

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. HUI WAI KIT

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1858
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC20/2020

The application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the complained rulings were properly reasoned: the judge lawfully admitted the electronic evidence for the limited purpose of proving communication, correctly found there was a case to answer with full written reasons, and gave appropriate directions to the jury; the grounds were poorly pleaded, lacked merit and did not demonstrate an arguable appellate complaint.
11 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. CHU KAR-KEET

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2294
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC319/2018

The photographs were excluded because they were insufficiently relevant to the facts of the charged offence and their prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value; the application to cross-examine the arresting officer about statements made by co-accused Tang was refused because Tang, having pleaded guilty, is a competent and compellable witness and his out-of-court statements constitute hearsay which cannot be admitted in lieu of calling him, so the defendant must choose whether to call Tang to give evidence.
28 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC411/2009

Cross-examination of Detective Constable 34311 to elicit statements by the first accused is disallowed because the first accused has pleaded guilty and is therefore a competent and compellable witness under Cap.221 ss.57(1),(2),(5),(6); the procedural unfairness rationale for admitting a co-accused's confession through prosecution witnesses does not apply where the defence can call the maker as a witness.
7 Apr 2000

WONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

WONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC28/1999

The court certified for the Court of Final Appeal the specific point whether the prosecution may rely on differences between confessional statements of co-accused to rebut allegations of police fabrication, and granted leave to appeal under s.32(2) Cap.484 on both limbs (point of law of great and general importance and substantial and grave injustice); no final determination on the substantive question was made at this stage.
19 Oct 1993

CHAU WAI KEUNG and Another v. R.

Citation

CHAU WAI KEUNG and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC448/1992

Proceeding with the joint trial in the absence of D2 was lawful and did not render convictions unsafe because D2's statements were not evidence against D1 or D3, the judge gave clear directions limiting their use, and the admissible independent evidence (particularly against D1, and corroboration for D3) meant the potential prejudice was not incurable.
3 Jul 1990

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI WAH

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC79/1989

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the judge's interventions did not amount to entering the arena or bias, the judge was entitled to exclude the jury for the contested submission (per R v Hendry), the identification evidence and notebook admission raised no sustainable ground on appeal, and eyewitness facial identification and trial directions rendered the conviction safe.
20 Nov 1981

WONG YAU-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG YAU-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC363/1981

The conviction was quashed because prejudicial references to the appellant's previous conviction and inadequately framed directions (including failure to unequivocally exclude co-accused statements as evidence against the appellant) could have unduly influenced the jury, and the appellate court could not be satisfied under the proviso that the jury would inevitably have convicted despite those errors.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. HUI WAI KIT

HKSAR v. CHU KAR-KEET

HKSAR v. TOERAB MOHAMEDAJOEB AND OTHERS

WONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

CHAU WAI KEUNG and Another v. R.

THE QUEEN v. WONG CHI WAH

WONG YAU-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN