Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 65c admissions

Legal area

Court

23 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴黃芷瑤

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2037
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA192/2023

Given the admitted facts (account control, mirror transactions, frequency and amounts inconsistent with declared income and student status) a reasonable person with the appellant's knowledge would have believed the funds were proceeds of crime; absence of any credible explanation (despite s65C income admission) permitted the trial judge to infer knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe and the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, so conviction is upheld.
16 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. TAM HO NAM

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1384
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC219/2019

The admissions of the Ambulance Conversation did not prejudice the trial; the alleged deficiencies in directions (Liberato and Mushtaq) were not material because the required messages were conveyed when the summing-up is read as a whole, the applicant had previously made formal s65C admissions of voluntariness and did not withdraw them, and the claim of oppression was not credibly established; failure to give propensity limb did not render trial unfair in context of an admitted brutal killing; conviction was safe and appeal dismissed.
8 May 2019

HKSAR v. NGAI HON KWONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1205
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC78/2016

The court found no sufficient basis to permit withdrawal of s65C admissions because the accused understood the scope of the admitted facts; there was no proven tampering or demonstrated unfairness warranting exclusion of the video‑recorded interviews so the videos could be played; and the prosecution's application to reopen its case was refused because the proposed evidence was not sufficiently important and reopening would be inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
6 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. LAM SHUEN SHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM SHUEN SHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA435/2004

The Magistrate's findings were not unsafe: he was entitled to infer A1's constructive knowledge from the evidence and to distinguish roles between employee and owner; PW2's statement was admissible in existing form because English counterparts were present and s65C applied; sentencing fell within established ranges so A2's sentence was upheld while A1's lesser role and mitigation justified immediate release.
8 Oct 1999

HKSAR v. LAM SIU WAH MATTHEW

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM SIU WAH MATTHEW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA777/1999

Where defendants admit obscenity by way of s.65C/65 admissions and there is sufficient material in admitted facts to determine level of obscenity, a Magistrate is not obliged to personally view all offending items; the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in adopting a 12‑month starting point for publishing offences in an area of prevalent trade where deterrence justified such sentences and the individual sentences of eight to nine months were not manifestly excessive, save that one appellant's plea discount required correction from nine to eight months.
30 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. OMAR HAROON MOHOMED

Citation

HKSAR v. OMAR HAROON MOHOMED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA46/1999

The conviction was quashed because the learned magistrate did not make the necessary finding that the knife was an offensive weapon; absence of that essential finding rendered the conviction unsafe, and the appellate court, having examined the knife and the circumstances, declined to make any further order under section 119(1)(d) and set aside the six month sentence.
31 Aug 1982

THE QUEEN v. CHAN LAM-KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN LAM-KEE AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC227/1982

The judge convicted because the statutory presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance applied given the location and nature of the drugs and keys, the defendants' admissions under s65C, and because the defence explanation (third-party account) was found inherently improbable and failed to rebut the presumptions on the balance of probabilities; the judge also found the only reasonable inference as to the poison was knowledge and possession and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.
31 Aug 1979

LAI CHIU HUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAI CHIU HUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC774/1979

The demand for money for the release of detained persons reasonably implied a threat amounting to menaces, justifying conviction of the first appellant; however the evidence was insufficient to infer that the second appellant had the requisite knowledge to be guilty of aiding and abetting, and his conviction was therefore quashed. The Court also held that section 65C admissions must be specific and that blanket 'Brief Facts' are improper for a paper trial.