Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial discretion to exclude evidence

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU TAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 151
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2017

The Court refused leave on most grounds because the judge’s evidential findings on authenticity of video/CCTV, the chain of custody, the fairness of direct confrontations and credibility assessments were thorough and not reasonably arguable on appeal; Ground 1.1 (a pure point of law about the prima facie test) may proceed to the Full Court without leave; it is reasonably arguable that the judge erred in relying on footwear as supporting identification so limited leave was granted on specified identification grounds; leave to appeal against sentence was granted.
17 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KWOK CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KWOK CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC151/2003

The court affirmed the trial judge's decision: the interview records were voluntary, the defence raised no trial objection that the Applicant's responses were involuntary, Rule VI did not apply because the Applicant had not been charged or informed he might be prosecuted at the time, and even if there had been a technical breach it would not have rendered the admissions involuntary or required exclusion; therefore there was no basis to exclude the interviews and the convictions and sentences were upheld.
17 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/1999

The trial judge correctly found the contested videoed interviews and reconstructions to be voluntary and admissible; breaches of the Rules and Directions do not automatically render a confession inadmissible and exclusion for unfairness is a rare residual discretion which was properly not exercised; permitting the complainant to give evidence by video link under s79B(4) CPO was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Therefore the convictions are safe and leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 Oct 1999

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC24/1999

The Appeal Committee concluded the refined question concerning the scope of judicial discretion to exclude voluntary admissions obtained by undercover officers where the accused was unaware of the officer's identity raised an issue of sufficient general and legal importance to merit determination by the Court of Final Appeal and accordingly granted leave to appeal on that certified question.
23 Feb 1995

R. v. WONG CHI KEUNG

Citation

R. v. WONG CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC45/1994

The judge validly admitted the applicant's voluntary written cautioned statements because he was entitled to assess each accused's circumstances separately; differing facts as to the co-accused justified rejecting the co-accused's statements while admitting the applicant's, and the discrepancies in police evidence were insufficient to render the conviction unsafe.
1 Apr 1980

NG WAI-MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

NG WAI-MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC400/1979

Physical evidence consisting of money found after a defendant led police to locations was admissible despite preceding inadmissible verbal statements because the discoveries were probative and not shown to have been obtained by impermissible trick; the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting that evidence; police questioning after charge should be rare; D.4's conviction was safe; sentences were excessive in part and were substituted (D.1 reduced to 7 years; D.2 reduced to 9 years concurrent with 6-year firearms term; D.4 reduced to 10 years concurrent with 6-year firearms term).
12 Jul 1977

CHEUNG KWAN-SANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHEUNG KWAN-SANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1049/1976

The Court held that questions on voir dire about the truth of an extrajudicial statement can be legally permissible as bearing on credibility and voluntariness, and that answers given on voir dire may in appropriate circumstances be led before the jury as substantive evidence; the trial judge's discretionary decision to admit such evidence will not be interfered with absent misdirection or misuse of discretion, and exclusion of admissible evidence is limited to cases where probative value is tenuous and prejudice substantial.
29 Feb 1972

THE QUEEN v. IP TAT SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. IP TAT SHING AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC90/1971

Judge found a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness because facts could support a conclusion that the confession may have been induced by threat to charge the defendant's wife who was being unlawfully detained; the Crown did not discharge its burden to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the statement was inadmissible and excluded. The judge reiterated that discretion to exclude only arises if evidence is admissible, but that was unnecessary here because the statement was held not voluntary.