Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guilty plea of co-accused

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. KOUAME EMMANUEL

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1165
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC48/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable: prosecutorial suggestions were permissible and properly countered by jury directions that questions are not evidence; D2's guilty plea was an admitted fact and was correctly handled; the judge gave adequate directions on DNA and on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution relied on multiple indicia beyond DNA such that no arguable error undermined the convictions.
21 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. NG SHUK HA, STONEY

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SHUK HA, STONEY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1229/2005

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly accepted the prosecution witnesses and banking evidence, was entitled to succinctly reject the defence witness, and the single discrepancy between PW1 and PW2 was immaterial to the verdict; the magistrate's reasons were adequate in substance to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
17 Mar 1983

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-LAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1120/1981

The conviction of the 1st appellant (D1) was quashed because the trial judge materially misdirected on facts and law (including improper reliance on the guilty pleas of co-accused and other factual errors) such that the misdirections were significant and might have misled the judge into convicting; the proviso could not be applied because the court could not be satisfied the conviction would inevitably have been reached absent the errors. A new trial for D1 was ordered in the interests of justice (with Crown undertaking not to call evidence about D2 and D4). By contrast, the convictions of D3…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. KOUAME EMMANUEL

HKSAR v. NG SHUK HA, STONEY

THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-LAM AND OTHERS