Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Uncharged acts evidence

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI TAO

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 49
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC54/2019

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the magistrate and the judge below correctly applied established principles: the high threshold for a permanent stay was not met, uncharged acts evidence was admissible and properly limited to context, the duplicity complaint was not a proper fresh ground and lacked merit, and the magistrate gave adequate reasons and permissibly found the complainant credible and the applicant not credible.
16 Aug 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳志滔

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1992
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA608/2018

The trial judge properly refused a permanent stay after assessing delay and available curative directions; evidence of uncharged acts was admissible for context and was limited in use; the judge’s credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference; on count 3 even if the act could be not indecent per se, there was sufficient evidence to infer indecent intent beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the convictions on counts 1–3 are safe and must be upheld.
5 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. INDRA AGUS SETIAWATI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 879
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC329/2018

The disputed mobile telephone contents were not evidence of other chargeable uncharged acts but admissible circumstantial evidence relevant to participation in a scheme and knowledge; the trial judge gave emphatic, specific directions limiting the use of the material and warning the jury not to speculate, and therefore there was no reasonably arguable ground of error; leave to appeal was refused.
7 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. INDRA AGUS SETIAWATI

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC318/2017

The impugned photographs and video extracted from the accused's mobile phone were admissible because they were relevant and probative when considered with the surrounding conduct and other evidence; any privacy breach did not mandate exclusion under the court's residual discretion and the material did not establish uncharged earlier offences so as to warrant exclusion. The jury must be directed that the material cannot be used to infer earlier drug dealing by the accused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI TAO

香港特別行政區 訴 陳志滔

HKSAR v. INDRA AGUS SETIAWATI

HKSAR v. INDRA AGUS SETIAWATI

香港特別行政區訴陳志滔