Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 77e evidence ordinance

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI HOA

Citation

HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI HOA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP56/2017

The ex parte application for a Letter of Request was refused because the mandatory requirements of s77E(2) were not met: the applicant could not identify or locate the proposed witnesses nor specify what evidence they could provide, the request was speculative and a 'stab in the dark', some bank records had already been sought domestically making parts of the request premature, and therefore there was no demonstrated realistic prospect that material and necessary evidence would be obtained to justify issuing the request.
24 Feb 1999

In re Chong Bing Keung Peter

Citation

In re Chong Bing Keung Peter
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/1999

The habeas corpus application fails because extradition committal proceedings are a preliminary inquiry not a trial, the applicant did not raise an arguable case that the magistrate erred in law or that race prejudice would likely occur at trial, and there is no entitlement in extradition committal proceedings to an order under s.77/77E to obtain foreign testimony to undermine the evidence before the magistrate.
2 Apr 1996

In re NICHOLAS HUNSWORTH

Citation

In re NICHOLAS HUNSWORTH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP489/1996

Majority held the question whether P. Chan J had jurisdiction to curtail the public's unqualified right under Order 63 r.4(1) must be determined by judicial review of the Registrar's administrative decision rather than by this appeal under O.59 r.14; accordingly the application to the Court of Appeal was not properly entertained and is dismissed.
28 Oct 1991

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LORRAIN ESME OSMAN DATO MOHOMMED SHAMSUDDIN AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LORRAIN ESME OSMAN DATO MOHOMMED SHAMSUDDIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2793/1985

Articles 10 and 11 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance do not apply to pre‑trial evidence‑gathering under s.77E of the Evidence Ordinance; the Bill of Rights does not operate retrospectively to disturb a 1985 order; accordingly a suspected person has no locus standi to challenge the master's ex parte s.77E order made in 1985 and the summons to set it aside is struck out.
13 Jun 1990

RE DAVIES YU

Citation

RE DAVIES YU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1216/1990

The High Court has jurisdiction under Evidence Ordinance s77E to issue a letter of request for overseas cross-examination and the applicant, though not charged in Hong Kong, falls within s77E(3)(a) because extradition proceedings were instituted in Hong Kong based on charges in the requesting state; on the facts the court should exercise its discretion to permit cross-examination in New York and therefore the application is granted.
10 Mar 1987

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAI LIM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAI LIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV21/1987

The Court held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that Yang was a vital witness unlikely to return to Hong Kong and therefore did not abuse his discretion in granting letters of request under s.77E; objections as to hearsay and medical letters went to weight and were not pursued; appellate interference was unwarranted, so the appeal was dismissed.
27 Feb 1987

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAI-LIM, ALIAS BILL CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAI-LIM, ALIAS BILL CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP387/1987

The court accepted the medical evidence that the witness would not return to Hong Kong and that he could give evidence on commission abroad; exercising its discretion under s.77E of the Evidence Ordinance it granted the application and ordered that a letter of request issue to the US District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to obtain the witness's sworn examination, while ensuring defence counsel may attend and cross-examine and endorsing the desirability of a magistrate travelling to the United States to take the evidence.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI HOA

In re Chong Bing Keung Peter

In re NICHOLAS HUNSWORTH

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LORRAIN ESME OSMAN DATO MOHOMMED SHAMSUDDIN AND OTHERS

RE DAVIES YU

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAI LIM

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN WAI-LIM, ALIAS BILL CHAN AND OTHERS