Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res gestae

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2025

HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 1
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/2024

An accused's out‑of‑court statements to a medical expert remain hearsay if used to prove the truth of their contents; they are admissible only as the factual basis for an expert's opinion and the weight of such opinion is for the jury to assess; the court will not create a new common‑law exception extending the mixed statement rule to admit such statements as proof of their truth and any reform is for the legislature.
31 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴陳佐豪

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1281
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2021

The Court held that the trial judge legitimately relied on circumstantial and contemporaneous evidence (location, attire and protective equipment, possession of radio and bandages, timing, escape and the assault by a nearby individual) to infer the applicant participated in the riot; the applicant's immediate claim to be a first aider and DW1's testimony did not rebut the prosecution's case, and there was no unfairness in the judge considering co-present conduct without prior defence notice; accordingly the conviction was safe.
22 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. HUI KA LOK, SAM

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC148/2020

Where independent evidence establishes a joint enterprise and a participant's involvement, the acts and declarations of co-participants made in furtherance of that enterprise (including communications necessary to advance the common purpose) are admissible and may be referred to in Opening and proved at trial; by contrast, hearsay statements that do not fall within that exception (notably certain narrative statements or those concerning Li Ka-kuen here) may not be relied upon in Opening until admissibility is established.
14 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING,STEPHEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC437/2015

The court admitted prosecution evidence that CIK was experimental and hospital‑appropriate as relevant; evidence of safe system failures including laboratory setup, procedures, inventory and testing is admissible against D1 and D2 (subject to hearsay rules); evidence against D3 is limited, primarily to failure to ensure viral and bacterial testing prior to infusion; laboratory staff may testify to their knowledge and reasons for non‑participation and experts may give opinions if supported by trial evidence; hearsay exclusions apply to untested utterances (eg Ho Wai Yan) and to exhibit labels…
22 May 2007

HKSAR v. WONG KAM TONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM TONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC522/2005

The Court allowed the appeal in part because the frequency and character of interruptions by prosecution counsel and interventions by the trial judge during defence cross-examination gave rise to a real possibility that the appellant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial; convictions on the 1st and 3rd charges were quashed, the 2nd charge conviction was upheld, and the effective sentence was reduced to 3 years and 3 months. The court also indicated that the 3rd charge would have been allowed on the separate ground that the res gestae exception was not properly attracted.
26 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. WONG KAM TONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM TONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC522/2005

Leave to appeal was granted because the frequency and tenor of the trial judge's interventions, together with uncurtailed prosecuting counsel's interventions, raised a real concern as to perceived unfairness that justified appellate scrutiny; other complaints were matters of trial judge fact-finding and unlikely to succeed on appeal.
23 Oct 2006

TAI FOOK FUTURES LTD v. CHEUNG MOON HOI JEFF

Citation

TAI FOOK FUTURES LTD v. CHEUNG MOON HOI JEFF
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV103/2005

The appeal is dismissed except that the defendant may amend his summons to seek specific discovery under Order 24 r7(1) by way of a director's affirmation stating whether the Reuters Index Futures trade recap fax said to have been sent on 29 April 1999 was or had been in the plaintiff's possession and, if not, when it parted with it and what became of it; absent evidence of tampering the request for vendor/make/model and inspection of the plaintiff's original audio files was a fishing expedition and properly refused
25 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. TANG WAI LIM

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG WAI LIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA671/2004

The magistrate correctly admitted the deceased's telephone statement as res gestae because the circumstances excluded the possibility of concoction; taken with the appellant's two cautioned statements and scene evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for careless driving, and the magistrate did not impermissibly rely on res ipsa loquitur.
17 Apr 2003

HKSAR v. LEUNG HUNG ON

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG HUNG ON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2002

The telephone conversation was admissible as declarations made by an agent of the applicant and, on the evidence of forced entry, a locked door and instructions to the victim to remain and leave later with the defendants, the trial judge was entitled to find the victim was unlawfully imprisoned; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed.
18 Jan 2001

HKSAR v. CHAN TAK KUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TAK KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1160/2000

Although the magistrate was correct to admit the evidence of the 23 January incidents as relevant and probative of a joint enterprise, the convictions were set aside because the learned magistrate did not expressly address or make a clear finding that the appellant had the specific intent to cause alarm when uttering the threats; that omission rendered the convictions unsafe.