Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Production of evidence (cctv)

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA516/2019

The magistrate properly exercised the power under s.8 to consider the information and for good cause refuse to issue a private summons where the sole material provided was insufficient to identify the essential ingredients of the alleged offence (aiding and abetting); Article 10 was not engaged because no criminal charge or determination of rights in a suit had been made; service by notice‑board complied with s.115(4)(c); requests for CCTV were not justified under ss.21-22 prior to institution of proceedings. Therefore the appeal was dismissed.
30 Jun 2015

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA267/2015

The magistrate acted within the statutory discretion in section 8(1B)(b) to refuse issuance of a summons for good cause after considering the materials; the appellant failed to disclose sufficient particulars to show a prima facie offence of perverting the course of public justice; there was no legal requirement for a public hearing or provision of audio recording for such an application; no appearance of bias existed; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
24 Feb 2005

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC527/2001

The summing‑up was fair and balanced; the circumstantial and forensic evidence (fibres, DNA, pathologist's findings), together with the applicant's flight and demonstrably false alibi, sufficed to support the jury's guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt; there was no irregularity meriting leave to appeal and no basis to order post‑trial production of CCTV that was available at the time of trial; accordingly leave to appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU YUI