Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corroboration of accomplice evidence

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TING BONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TING BONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC89/2003

The Court held that the immunities granted to the accomplice witness did not render the trial unfair; the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in admitting and assessing the witness's evidence given corroborative documentary and transactional indicia, the Bill of Rights arguments failed because no substantive inequality or prejudice was shown, limits on cross-examination arising from the scope of immunities did not materially prejudice the defence, and the expert evidence did not neutralize the prosecution case; therefore the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
25 Jan 1999

LEUNG SUN KEUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

LEUNG SUN KEUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC31/1998

The acquittal on the drugging count did not preclude the jury from considering the same evidence as probative of rape; the acquittal is final as to that specific count but does not make evidence inadmissible on a different charge where it is relevant and material, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
17 Mar 1995

R. v. LIU MEI CHEUNG and Another

Citation

R. v. LIU MEI CHEUNG and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC425/1994

The Court upheld the convictions because the trial judge’s credibility findings were sustainable and the complainant’s evidence was independently corroborated by the taped conversation and possession of marked money, rendering the applicants' discrepancy and identification arguments insufficient to overturn the verdicts; sentences were not excessive and were affirmed.
23 Feb 1994

LUI MAN KIT v. R.

Citation

LUI MAN KIT v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC363/1993

The appeal is dismissed: the cross-examination challenged was, in large part, legitimate inquiry into the applicant's medical practice and background; the trial judge properly intervened to prevent impermissible propensity questions; the judge did not err in refusing to direct on good character because the applicant did not put character in issue and had pleaded guilty to other counts; accordingly the conviction is safe.
15 Dec 1993

HKSAR v. CHU KWOK KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU KWOK KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC597/1990

The Court held the convictions and sentences were safe: jury directions on duress, burden and corroboration were adequate; the jury were entitled to accept or reject parts of the accomplice's evidence; the oral admission was properly admitted and left for the jury; verdicts were not irreconcilably inconsistent; sentences were not manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused for the applicants considered.
29 Sept 1993

R. v. ALICK AU SHUI YUEN

Citation

R. v. ALICK AU SHUI YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC470/1992

The Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the judge correctly applied the co-conspirator rule and that a prima facie independent evidential foundation was required and present; any procedural imprecision (judge leaving certain matters to the jury) was harmless to the accused; lies may amount to corroboration if deliberate, clearly false and motivated by fear of truth; cumulatively the independent evidence (hotel, telephone and travel records and Reid's testimony) was sufficient to corroborate and support the conviction; sentence of four years was appropriate and is affirmed.
7 May 1993

CHUI WAI-TAI and Others v. R.

Citation

CHUI WAI-TAI and Others v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/1991

The Court held the trial judge's directions were proper, the accomplice evidence was properly corroborated (by the first applicant's statement and by fingerprint evidence as explained by the second applicant), there was no prejudicial interference with cross-examination, and the convictions of the first and second applicants were upheld; sentencing was lawful, but the second applicant's sentence was reduced to 17 years to reflect timely cooperation; the third applicant's 11.5 year sentence was affirmed.
29 May 1990

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG WAI SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YEUNG WAI SHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/1989

The Court held the trial judge's directions on corroboration were legally sound because the police evidence of finding cash and written address was independent of accomplice assertions; Cheng Yeung sentencing guidelines should not be applied retrospectively to offences committed before that decision; sentencing must now be based on quantity of the active narcotic (salts of esters of morphine) with specified bands, and appropriate reductions for plea and assistance were ordered in the individual appeals.
12 Jul 1989

THE QUEEN v. PETER BERND BECKERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. PETER BERND BECKERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC518/1988

The trial judge's direction regarding the accountant's schedules and s.21 evidence was unclear and inadequate: he either impermissibly withdrew admissible evidence or failed to instruct the jury how to treat it as corroboration, producing an unsafe conviction; therefore the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and set aside the sentences, ordering a retrial and declining to apply the proviso.
23 Jun 1988

THE QUEEN v. LIU KAN POR

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LIU KAN POR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC546/1987

The trial judge's directions and admission of the prior-trial transcript were, overall, sufficient; the failure to direct explicitly that the transcript could corroborate accomplice evidence was non-prejudicial to the appellant and did not affect the verdict, so the proviso applies; convictions and concurrent three-year sentences are upheld (sentences to run from original custody date).