Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confessions

Legal area

Court

16 May 2025

HKSAR v. MA CHUN KIT

Citation

[2025] HKCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC224/2020

The Court held that the trial judge's summing-up, read in context, did not produce an unfair trial because the focus and particulars of the charges were on appropriation of Hyundai HK's choses in action by unauthorised transfers, the alleged references to post-transfer dealings were evidential of dishonesty rather than a separate basis of liability, and the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming; Ghosh remains the law in Hong Kong and there was no legal requirement to expand the objective limb to include the defendant's beliefs such that a material miscarriage occurred; accordingly t…
20 May 2019

香港特別行政區對林文德

Citation

[2019] HKCA 526
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC49/2018

The admissions and objective evidence were comprehensive and overwhelming; the trial judge's erroneous statement about who knew the iron shack's code was immaterial and did not prejudice the accused; the judge's directions achieved the purpose of para 10B and were not unfair; therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
12 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. POON MAN SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. POON MAN SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC399/2015

The appellate court held that the evidence of the separate attack on Chan was admissible and not unduly prejudicial given it was contained in agreed Admitted Facts and the judge gave appropriate limiting directions which the jury must be presumed to have followed; omission of the propensity limb of the good character direction was appropriate and unobjected to by defence counsel; accordingly there was no miscarriage of justice and the application for leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
16 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. ZHOU LIMEI

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHOU LIMEI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2016

The appellant's utterance, made after her luggage had been opened, a packet sliced, a positive rapid test reported and after arrest and caution, was not reasonably capable of being an admission that she 'all along' knew she was carrying dangerous drugs (the version including the Cantonese particle '啩' expressed uncertainty); the trial judge erred in leaving the statement to the jury without first considering admissibility and the residual exclusionary discretion; the statement should be excluded and the conviction quashed with a retrial ordered.
25 Jul 2003

HKSAR v. WONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC459/2001

The judge materially misdirected the jury by stating that any evidence of the accused or defence witnesses which the jury were not 'sure' was true must be disregarded for all purposes; proper direction requires that the jury may take into account defence evidence that is believed or may be true when assessing whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The misdirection was material given the jury's expressed confusion and the 5-2 verdicts, and accordingly the convictions of the 1st and 2nd Applicants are quashed.
26 Jun 2000

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/1999

The court held that the residual discretion must be exercised to secure a fair trial and is limited to assessing whether admitting a voluntary confession would be unfair judged against requirements of a fair trial (including protection of the right of silence); in undercover operations passive recording is ordinarily admissible but active interrogation by an undercover agent will ordinarily justify exclusion; on the facts complete determination of exercise of discretion required the full transcripts, so the Court allowed the appeal, reversed the acquittals and remitted the matter for trial.
8 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. CHOW KAM TAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW KAM TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC599/1999

The Court held the trial judge gave fair, adequate and balanced directions; the confessions and accomplice evidence were properly admitted and sufficient to support the convictions; the combined quantity of heroin (284.92g) fell within the sentencing guideline justifying a total term of 14 years, and thus the convictions and sentences were upheld and leave to appeal refused.
16 Jan 1998

HKSAR v. SO CHI KWONG and Others

Citation

HKSAR v. SO CHI KWONG and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC542/1997

The trial judge’s factual findings that the cautioned statements were voluntary and credible were not shown to be wrong on appeal; those admissions, together with identification and forensic evidence, were sufficient to support convictions, and the sentences fall within established guidelines and are not manifestly excessive — therefore the applications to appeal against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
10 Jul 1997

HKSAR v. CHENG YAT MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG YAT MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC592/1996

The trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion to limit the character direction to propensity only because the applicant's guilty plea to theft disqualified him from being treated as of good character and any credibility direction would have required heavy qualifications making it ineffective; therefore the omission was not a material non-direction and the conviction for murder was safe.
23 Jul 1996

R. v. TUNG KIN KWOK

Citation

R. v. TUNG KIN KWOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA636/1996

The magistrate properly admitted and accepted the cautioned statements as voluntary and gave them decisive weight; the late alibi did not constitute a proper alibi because opportunities to offend remained; no demonstrable unfairness arose from lack of representation or minor procedural slips; accordingly the convictions are safe and the appeal is dismissed.