Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy to murder

Legal area

Court

22 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. SEE WAH LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SEE WAH LUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC370/2009

The Court held the trial judge properly exercised her statutory discretion to permit PW1 to give evidence by live television link because PW1 was a witness in fear supported by factual background (witness protection, threats); PW1 reading prior statements went to weight not admissibility and was not a material irregularity; the summing up, taken as whole including repeated warnings about accomplice evidence and coverage of defence submissions, was not so deficient as to render the conviction unsafe; and the sentences were within lawful range and not manifestly excessive.
22 Jan 2009

HKSAR v. TANG YUK FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG YUK FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC406/2007

The Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal because the Recorder's summing up sufficiently addressed the crucial issue of PW3's credibility, warned the jury appropriately about treating accomplice evidence with caution, identified supporting material, and any hearsay elements were minor compared with direct evidence implicating the applicants; no material irregularity or miscarriage of justice was shown.
21 Dec 2007

HKSAR v. CHENG WUI YIU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG WUI YIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC532/2004

The Court refused to admit the fresh evidence under s83V because the main proposed witness (Ng) was wholly unreliable and not credible; accordingly the fresh material would not have rendered the convictions unsafe or unsatisfactory. The convictions and sentences (life with 22-year minimum and concurrent 5 years) were therefore affirmed.
22 Jun 2001

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC571/1998

Leave to appeal against convictions and sentences was dismissed because the trial evidence was sufficient and properly admitted, the judge's warnings (including about accomplice evidence) were adequate, the identified misdirection was immaterial on the facts, the computer-assisted illustration did not add substantive evidence and was permissible, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive.
8 Dec 2000

HKSAR v. CHEUNG NING YAU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG NING YAU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC133/2000

The conviction is upheld because the evidence against the applicant was materially different and substantially stronger (tape-recorded controlled meetings, undercover officer evidence and multiple voluntary video interviews/admissions) than the evidence against the co-accused who relied essentially on PW1 alone; therefore the jury could reasonably convict the applicant and acquit the co-accused and the trial judge's directions were correct, so the conviction and sentence are safe.
1 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. SIU PING FUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SIU PING FUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC264/1999

On the depositions before the magistrate the only evidence against the 2nd accused was his own interview which repeatedly asserted lack of any intention to commit murder and explained conduct as a scheme to cheat for money; there was no independent evidence of agreement or any overt act inconsistent with innocence and the prosecution could not point to facts that excluded an innocent hypothesis; therefore there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to murder and the accused must be discharged under s.16(3) CPO.
13 Oct 1998

HKSAR v. LAI SIK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI SIK HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC636/1997

The applicant's generalized complaints of bias, misdirection, press distortion and the absence of D2 did not demonstrate that the convictions were unsafe or unsatisfactory; the jury had been fully and properly instructed and the evidence supported findings of murder and conspiracy; the 24-year sentence for conspiracy was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, therefore both applications are dismissed.
29 Nov 1996

YEUNG YAN CHI v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Citation

YEUNG YAN CHI v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV179/1996

The Court held the appellant failed to show a viable complaint; a committal warrant inaccurately describing an extradition offence as 'contrary to common law' when it is statutory does not invalidate committal or cause prejudice where particulars are sufficient; leave for habeas corpus was properly refused and the appeal dismissed with costs.
9 Jan 1996

THE QUEEN v. TIN SAU-KWONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TIN SAU-KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC2/1995

Applying the Galbraith test and related authorities, and assuming all admissible evidence in the committal papers at its highest, the judge concluded that a reasonable jury, properly directed, could properly convict on counts 1 and 2; therefore the s.16 application for discharge was refused and the matter must be tried by a jury.
7 Apr 1995

R. v. Cheng Shui

Citation

R. v. Cheng Shui
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/1994

Because the Crown was permitted to call extensive rebuttal evidence aimed solely at impeaching the appellant's credibility and the trial judge failed to give a clear direction on how the jury should treat lies, there was a real danger the jury equated lying with guilt; the convictions were therefore unsafe and were quashed with no retrial ordered.