Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Video recorded interviews (vris)

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. MARISTELA RHEA NERISSA CURBI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 422
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/2021

The judge’s findings that the applicants had the requisite knowledge or belief that the HK$500 notes were counterfeit, based on admissions, VRIs and CCTV evidence, were not reasonably arguable as erroneous; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction (1st applicant) and against sentence (both applicants) was refused and the sentences were held within the available discretion.
11 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. CHUA SHIRLEY MASIGLA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 872
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/2018

Leave to appeal was granted only on a single, reasonably arguable mixed question of law and fact — D1's Ground 5 challenging the "shut eye"/turning a blind eye directions on knowledge — because whether that direction was appropriate depended on the facts. Leave was refused on all other grounds of conviction and on all grounds of sentence; some grounds were pure questions of law and thus did not require leave. The sentences were held to be within judicial discretion and not reasonably arguable as unlawful.
4 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. ALI NAZAKAT

Citation

[2021] HKCA 121
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC15/2019

The Court held the 3rd and 4th VRIs and evidence of the dishonesty offences and illegal entry were admissible because they were interrelated with the sexual offence, relevant to the appellant's credibility and the issue of consent, and not admitted to show propensity; the judge gave adequate directions (including on lies and non-use of immigration status) so there was no real risk of unfairness — appeal dismissed.
7 Aug 2020

HKSAR v. ALI NAZAKAT

Citation

[2020] HKCA 679
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC35/2019

The court held that the dishonesty offences were admissible because they formed part of the same incident and were relevant to present a truthful whole picture to the jury, but acknowledged that parts of the 3rd and 4th VRIs (spending spree and illegal entry details) might be more prejudicial than probative and therefore gave limited leave to appeal on those points; directions on drunkenness were adequate and the sentencing approach including enhancement for immigration status and consecutive term was not reasonably arguable as excessive.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. MARISTELA RHEA NERISSA CURBI AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHUA SHIRLEY MASIGLA AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. ALI NAZAKAT

HKSAR v. ALI NAZAKAT