Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mushtaq direction

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. KWAN TAT YEE (關達儀)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 15
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC13/2023

The Court granted leave to appeal on two focused questions: (1) whether the Liberato direction should be re-framed as suggested (per De Silva) and (2) when a Liberato direction should be given, particularly regarding inconsistent defence evidence; the Court refused leave on the substantial and grave injustice ground concerning an alleged equivocal admission and treated the Mushtaq point as peripheral and sufficiently covered by the second question.
7 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. KWAN TAT YEE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1021
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC213/2018

Read as a whole the trial judge's summing‑up properly and adequately conveyed the relevant legal principles (Mushtaq/Liberato and burden/standard of proof), the applicant's interview contained an unequivocal admission he took the knife, a Liberato direction was not required on these facts, and there was no real prejudice rendering the conviction unsafe; leave to appeal was refused and the appeals dismissed.
16 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. CHU KAR KEET

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1184
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC284/2019

The application for a certificate was refused because the issues advanced were factual matters properly addressed by the trial judge in her summing‑up; the judge correctly instructed the jury that absence of fingerprints was neutral in context, addressed DNA evidence separately, and there was no legal basis to require a Mushtaq‑type direction; therefore no point of law of great and general importance arose to warrant a certificate.
4 Jun 2021

香港特別行政區訴廖月琴

Citation

[2021] HKCA 838
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/2019

The Court granted leave to appeal against conviction limited to the first ground concerning the adequacy of the Mushtaq direction, finding that this issue raised a real prospect of disturbance and warranted full appellate consideration; grounds relating to joint possession and alleged unfairness of directions on the defence case were dismissed as unarguable because the trial judge's directions on joint possession were adequate and those complaints lacked foundation.
26 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. YIU CHI MING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 99
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2018

The appeal is dismissed: no inferential‑reasoning direction was required because the prosecution did not present a standalone circumstantial case; and although the Mushtaq direction was not given in the verbatim structured form of the specimen, when viewed as a whole in the factual and procedural context of the trial the judge sufficiently conveyed the essential Mushtaq principles so the conviction is not unsafe.
4 Dec 2020

HKSAR v, TSUI CHI WAI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1007
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC315/2017

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to give a Mushtaq direction on a contested verbal admission where voluntariness was plainly in issue; that failure, compounded by counsel errors at pre‑trial and pre‑summing stages, undermined the safety of the convictions and required quashing and a retrial.
30 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 534
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC200/2018

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by both applicants refused because the alleged trial misdirections and evidential complaints were not reasonably arguable: the trial judge correctly admitted the statement after factual assessment, jury directions (including on circumstantial evidence and duress) were adequate with written directions before jury curing any oral slip, the photographs were admitted by agreement and properly directed upon, the perverting counts formed a distinct category justifying consecutive sequencing within totality, and proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy…
5 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. YIU CHI MING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1244
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2018

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of Ground 1(a) (failure to give an inferential direction) and Ground 2 (omission of a proper Mushtaq direction) because those grounds were reasonably arguable: the prosecutor explicitly invited the jury to convict on circumstantial evidence in the alternative to the admissions, and the defence raised a real issue that the VRI/confessions were induced or coached; other grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused for them.
1 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN ERNEST

Citation

[2019] HKCA 869
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC191/2018

The judge correctly assessed the facts and legal principles: there was no realistic basis to conclude the oral admission was induced by oppression beyond those matters already addressed; the judge gave appropriate Mushtaq directions where required in relation to the notebook entry and the video interview; directions regarding refusal to answer and the evidential status of statements under s65B were adequate; the grounds lacked merit and leave to appeal was refused.
11 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區訴李偉嘉

Citation

[2019] HKCA 725
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/2018

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to give the required Mushtaq direction where there was a real possibility the appellant's admitted statements were induced by fear of complaint or other oppressive conduct by the complainant; therefore the admissions (P11/P12) could not be left to the jury without that direction and the conviction must be quashed.