Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Flight evidence

  • 28 Feb 2019

    HKSAR v. YIP WING FAT

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 463
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC395/1993

    The court exercised its discretion to refuse a second voir dire because the defendant deliberately absconded after a full and thorough 16‑day voir dire where he was represented, thereby waiving any right to a rehearing; rehearing would prejudice the due administration of justice given loss of witnesses and the passage of time. The original ruling admitting the record of interview therefore stands. The defendant's flight and his contemporaneous letter are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt subject to redaction to remove prejudicial material not relevant to the nexus with the offe…

  • 28 Feb 2019

    HKSAR v. YIP WING FAT

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 463
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC28/1994

    The court exercised its discretion to refuse a second voir dire and to accept Cannon DJ's 1994 ruling admitting the defendant's record of interview because the defendant deliberately absconded and thereby forfeited or waived the right to re-litigate; additionally, evidence of the defendant's 1994 flight is admissible because a sufficient nexus to the offence exists, subject to redaction of prejudicial material from his letter.

  • 4 May 2009

    HKSAR v. MUTENGU JOHNSON MIKAILI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MUTENGU JOHNSON MIKAILI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC215/2008

    The trial judge's directions were, on the whole, adequate as to knowledge and credibility; although the flight direction was not fuller as recommended in Mo Shiu Shing, that deficiency was harmless because there was no innocent explanation for flight and the nexus between possession and other evidence made the verdict inevitable; therefore the proviso to s.83(1) CPO applies and the appeal is dismissed, conviction and 20‑year sentence affirmed.

  • 29 Oct 2008

    HKSAR v. CHAN HON MING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN HON MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC314/2007

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err: the evidence of the applicant's departure was admissible as potentially supporting the prosecution given the immediacy and unity of a series of similar offences committed shortly before departure, and the judge's directions properly instructed the jury to consider innocent explanations and to decide each count separately, so the convictions were not rendered unsafe.