Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Documentary hearsay

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

Court directed reasonable overseas enquiries of Mr King and the NZ liquidators for disclosure; allowed prosecution to adduce evidence of pre-existing business relationships (including matters linked to GFIG and Super Worth) as circumstantial evidence of cooperation but prohibited any case theory that the 1st Accused had a legal duty to disclose those past dealings or that non-disclosure alone establishes dishonesty; allowed evidence about pressure to convert convertible notes but excluded witness opinion (PW2 Yip) about the accused's motives; held that evidence of Dynasty Group liquidation an…
25 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. LIU LIXIANG

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU LIXIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA95/2016

Magistrate correctly found the goods were prima facie liable to forfeiture, accepted only invoice C2 supported by CW1 establishing ownership of 100 iPhones, rejected invoices C1 and C3 and CW2 as unreliable documentary hearsay, and the appellant having failed to give evidence or establish on the balance of probabilities that she did not facilitate the contravention, failed to discharge the burden necessary to obtain delivery under s28(7); accordingly the forfeiture order was properly upheld.
14 Dec 1999

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JERRY LUI KIN HONG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JERRY LUI KIN HONG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC3/1999

The Court held that a judge is entitled at common law to examine the form and contents of documentary material and draw inferences for the purpose of determining whether statutory conditions for admitting business records are satisfied; documents that are tendered to show entries, discrepancies or adoption as business records (not to prove the truth of the substantive statements they contain) are not hearsay and are admissible; s.22B(2) does not preclude such examination and s.22A does not bar admission where documents are tendered otherwise than to prove a fact stated in them.
26 Feb 1999

HKSAR v. LUI KIN HONG, JERRY

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI KIN HONG, JERRY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC378/1998

The court held the trial judge erred in admitting the GIL/Pasto documents because the statutory preconditions of sections 22/22A of the Evidence Ordinance were not satisfied and section 22B(2) precludes drawing inferences from documents to establish admissibility; reliance on R v Foxley was misplaced under Hong Kong law, therefore the conviction was quashed and no retrial ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LIU LIXIANG

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JERRY LUI KIN HONG

HKSAR v. LUI KIN HONG, JERRY