21 Oct 2020
香港特別行政區 訴 羅少韓及另一人
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 2673
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA579/2019
The court held that the facts in Kearley differ materially from this case; the 'Guo' conversation was admissible because it was tendered not for the truth of its content but to prove the fact it was uttered and to provide contextual evidence of the speaker's knowledge and role in triad activity; established principles on relevance and hearsay permit such use; therefore no question of law of wide public importance suitable for certification under s32 arose.