Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 17a evidence ordinance

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. CHEONG BUN KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEONG BUN KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC146/2012

The trial judge properly and cogently rejected the applicant's evidence; given the accepted evidence that the documents were forged and there was no genuine underlying transaction, the applicant's conviction was inevitable and the renewal application for leave to appeal lacked merit; accordingly the renewal was dismissed and an order under s83W(1) was justified to disallow one month of custody from counting towards the sentence.
1 Aug 2007

HKSAR v. ANG SU WEN, PAULINE

Citation

HKSAR v. ANG SU WEN, PAULINE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC428/2005

The court held that under s.17A Evidence Ordinance the university witnesses and the documentary records were properly admissible because a system of record‑keeping could be inferred from their evidence and the existence and nature of the records; R v Patel was distinguishable under a different statutory regime, so the absence of entries was prima facie proof the applicant did not attend the universities and the leave application was dismissed.
9 Feb 1999

HKSAR v. SHUM YU KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. SHUM YU KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA797/1998

The Court held that section 17A could be relied upon notwithstanding non-compliance with section 22A where the cashiers, acting under a duty, compiled records by a routine system and the absence of an entry was prima facie evidence the sale did not occur; accordingly the conviction was upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHEONG BUN KWAN

HKSAR v. ANG SU WEN, PAULINE

HKSAR v. SHUM YU KIN