Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑disclosure of evidence

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. HO PAK HONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 176
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC153/2019

Non-disclosure of the true fingerprint examination results was an inadvertent mistake but not prejudicial to the applicant's case so did not render the trial unfair; the unrelated subsequent conviction of the exhibits officer did not impugn the integrity of the exhibits evidence; and section 56A does not preclude enhancement of sentence where a minor recruits another minor, so the judge's one-year enhancement and total sentence of 14 years for the applicant acting as organiser/recruiter of trafficking involving 799 grams of ketamine was justified and not excessive.
1 Jun 2010

SIU CHI WAN VINCENT v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

Citation

SIU CHI WAN VINCENT v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1907/2009

The application for leave was refused because the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant an extension of time was not a final judgment under s22(1)(a) and the application did not meet the threshold of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the non-disclosed Advice had been produced and its substance was reflected in disclosed material (M5) so no prejudice arose; and new grounds not raised before the Court of Appeal will not be considered by the Court of Final Appeal absent exceptional circumstances.
28 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. LAU TUNG CHEE ALAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU TUNG CHEE ALAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC457/2003

The court refused the certificate because the points raised did not disclose a complex or unsettled question of law warranting consideration by the Court of Final Appeal; the relevant principles concerning the proviso to s.83(1) and assessment of non-disclosed evidence are well established and do not justify certification in this case.
19 Feb 2003

HKSAR v. GODAGAN DENIYALAGE PREMA C

Citation

HKSAR v. GODAGAN DENIYALAGE PREMA C
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA722/2002

Material non-disclosure by the prosecution rendered the conviction unsafe; accordingly the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside, and no retrial was ordered because the property value was small and the undisclosed evidence would materially damage the complainant's credibility, leaving little prospect of a successful reprosecution.
11 May 2001

HKSAR v. HA CHI MING SUMMER

Citation

HKSAR v. HA CHI MING SUMMER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA5/2001

Because the prosecution failed to disclose bank statements and withdrawal slips that could have supported the appellant's account and affected the magistrate's assessment of his credibility, the nondisclosure left doubt as to whether a substantial and grave injustice had occurred; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.
13 Oct 1998

HKSAR v. PANG MO FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG MO FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA458/1998

The conviction was quashed because a subsequently obtained medical report, not produced at trial but shown to be authentic, contained materially different injury findings that could have affected the magistrate's credibility assessment; therefore the verdict could not stand. However, a retrial was refused because the offence was minor and public interest did not justify expending resources on a new trial.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. HO PAK HONG

SIU CHI WAN VINCENT v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

HKSAR v. LAU TUNG CHEE ALAN

HKSAR v. GODAGAN DENIYALAGE PREMA C

HKSAR v. HA CHI MING SUMMER

HKSAR v. PANG MO FUNG