Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confession evidence

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. YIU CHI MING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1244
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2018

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of Ground 1(a) (failure to give an inferential direction) and Ground 2 (omission of a proper Mushtaq direction) because those grounds were reasonably arguable: the prosecutor explicitly invited the jury to convict on circumstantial evidence in the alternative to the admissions, and the defence raised a real issue that the VRI/confessions were induced or coached; other grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused for them.
11 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區訴李偉嘉

Citation

[2019] HKCA 725
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/2018

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to give the required Mushtaq direction where there was a real possibility the appellant's admitted statements were induced by fear of complaint or other oppressive conduct by the complainant; therefore the admissions (P11/P12) could not be left to the jury without that direction and the conviction must be quashed.
3 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳就

Citation

[2019] HKCA 747
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC308/2017

The judge correctly directed the jury; the jury were entitled to reject the defendant's account and accept the prosecution evidence including the confessions; the evidence established trafficking in the specified quantities beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
25 Apr 2014

香港特別行政區訴老嘉盈

Citation

香港特別行政區訴老嘉盈
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC45/2014

Bail was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficiently arguable grounds to challenge the jury's factual findings (including contested confessions) or that the seven-year sentence was manifestly excessive; therefore release pending appeal was not justified.
15 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. NG HON PIU

Citation

HKSAR v. NG HON PIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC295/2012

The jury’s unanimous guilty verdict was upheld because the recorded admissions, corroborating items seized and expert chemical analysis provided sufficient evidence of trafficking; the trial judge gave proper directions on confessions and credibility; and the sentence of 9 years, determined by reference to the combined quantities and established sentencing guideline for Ice, was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
12 Aug 2009

HKSAR v. CHOY SIU PANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOY SIU PANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA65/2009

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate was entitled to find PW1 credible; the content and duration of the 19‑second video and the appellant's voluntary admission established deliberate filming under the victim's skirt; the magistrate's interruptions were legitimate requests for clarification or administrative pauses and did not unfairly hinder cross‑examination.
24 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. CHENG FUK SHEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG FUK SHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC373/2003

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to accept the oral confession and eyewitness evidence and to reject the applicant's testimony; the absence of DNA or fingerprint evidence and the allegations about the identification parade and bias did not undermine the safety of the conviction.
19 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. FUN TSZ YIN, BENNY AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FUN TSZ YIN, BENNY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA978/2001

The appeal is allowed and convictions quashed because the trial contained material legal errors: the signed confession of PW4 was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement and was relied upon by the magistrate in assessing credibility; the magistrate failed properly to address the risks inherent in accomplice testimony and misapprehended and improperly weighed evidence concerning key exhibits and witness attendance, such that it is just to set aside the convictions.
14 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. LIU SHUK-HAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU SHUK-HAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC352/2000

The Court refused the out‑of‑time renewal of leave and held the sentence of four years ten months was within the applicable guideline range and not manifestly excessive because the confession, corroborated by contemporaneous conduct, established trafficking; sentence therefore stands but two months of custody shall not be counted towards the sentence as a consequence of the defective application.
13 Jun 2001

HKSAR v. KWOK CHI KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK CHI KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC425/2000

The judge fairly and accurately directed the jury on the law and facts, the discrepancies relied on by the Applicant were matters for the jury to resolve, the confession evidence (admitted) did not render the convictions unsafe, and therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.