Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ghosh dishonesty test

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2021

HKSAR v. YEUNG SARAH SUM YEE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 592
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA576/2019

The application for a s32 certificate is refused because the law is settled that statements to experts may be used only as the foundation for expert opinion not as proof of past sensations; given the applicant did not testify or submit to cross-examination the Magistrate was entitled to give the experts' opinions little weight; the issue does not raise a point of law of great and general importance warranting certification.
11 Apr 2008

HKSAR v. HUI SIU

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI SIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC207/2007

Court allowed appeal because on the judge's own findings it was possible the appellant genuinely believed cheques would be honoured; the element of dishonesty required for evasion by deception was not proved to the necessary standard where deception was at best reckless and the judge failed to properly apply both limbs of the Ghosh test; conviction therefore unsafe and quashed.
19 Feb 2008

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC284/2006

Convictions of D1 and D2 were upheld because overwhelming independent evidence, independent of any co-conspirator statements, established guilty knowledge and participation; the trial judge erred on sentencing by imposing individual terms disproportionate to the Clark/Barrick guideline bands so individual sentences were substituted though total effective term (6 years) was appropriate; compensation orders were quashed for lack of precision and inadequate consideration of means; D6's conviction for conspiracy (charge 7) was unsafe and quashed for insufficient evidence of knowledge of the consp…
18 Oct 2007

HKSAR v. LEUNG PING NAM

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG PING NAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA432/2007

The magistrate was entitled to accept the prosecution witnesses as credible after observing them and, based on accepted primary facts (no inspector chop or signature on Exhibit P1 when handed to appellant, presence of chop/signature when presented to PW5, PW3 did not present or see the form again, PW4 denied signing), the only non‑speculative inference is that the appellant affixed the chop and signature and presented the form; convictions affirmed. On sentence, given extraordinary delay not attributable to appellant, concurrent six‑month sentences suspended for two years were appropriate.
17 Sept 2003

HKSAR v. CHENG SUI WA

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG SUI WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC223/2001

The Court upheld the convictions: the trial judge properly exercised her role in admitting and directing on co-conspirator evidence (judge decides preliminary admissibility per Ahern), the Ghosh direction as a whole was adequate in context, the lies direction was not prejudicially deficient, the application to admit fresh evidence under s83V was refused because the evidence lacked credibility and no reasonable explanation was given for its non-production at trial, and the convictions therefore stand; the Court adjusted sentence on totality grounds, reducing the global term from nine to eight…
21 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. GOH SWEE YAN ANGELINA

Citation

HKSAR v. GOH SWEE YAN ANGELINA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC491/1999

By majority the Court upheld the conviction on the first charge for procuring a bank record by deception (finding dishonesty established under Ghosh and sufficient evidence to infer the deposit entry), but concluded the second count of theft could not stand because the proceeds constituted a new chose in action which did not belong to the victim under Preddy and s6(3) did not cure that defect; accordingly the conviction on the second count was substituted with a conviction for evading a liability by deception (s18B) because all its elements were proven on the primary facts.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. YEUNG SARAH SUM YEE

HKSAR v. HUI SIU

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI KEUNG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEUNG PING NAM

HKSAR v. CHENG SUI WA

HKSAR v. GOH SWEE YAN ANGELINA