Hong Kong Case Law

23 Feb 2018

香港特別行政區 訴 王卓鵬

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 352

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA523/2016

The fresh evidence application was refused because the dyslexia evidence was not newly available and could and should have been produced at trial and there were no exceptional circumstances; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and found the admission voluntary and corroborated by circumstances, and the prosecution evidence proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the convictions are safe.

• Admissibility of confession
• Fresh evidence
• Voluntariness of admission
• Credibility assessment
• Police cautioning (警誡)

24 Apr 2017

HKSAR v. TSANG, CHEUK HIM ADLEY

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG, CHEUK HIM ADLEY

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA231/2016

The collective circumstantial evidence — eyewitnesses who saw the appellant throw round egg-like objects in the direction and at the time PW1 was struck, the discovery of numerous eggs in the appellant's rucksack, the appellant's admission that the eggs were for throwing at people, and the presence of intact and broken eggs near the scene — allowed the magistrate and this court to draw the irresistible inference beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant recklessly threw eggs and one struck PW1, and the magistrate's credibility findings (including voluntariness of the admission) were not plai…

• Common assault
• Battery
• Circumstantial evidence
• Voluntariness of admission
• Appellate standard of review
• Recklessness

5 Oct 2005

CHAN SIU KEUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

CHAN SIU KEUNG v. HKSAR

Court

Court of Final Appeal

Case number

FAMC43/2005

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's application of the proviso was within accepted norms and there was no substantial and grave injustice from the failure to hold a voir dire; accordingly, even if time were extended, leave would not be granted.

• Drug trafficking
• Drug manufacturing
• Voluntariness of admission
• Voir dire
• Substantial and grave injustice
• Proviso application

THE QUEEN v. LAM SHING KIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM SHING KIN

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA908/1986

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate, having accepted expert evidence that being a '426' required a promotion ceremony, did not demonstrate that he addressed whether the appellant's admission meant he had undergone that ceremony; failure to decide this material question rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

• Admissibility of cautioned statement
• Proof of office-bearer/membership in triad
• Voluntariness of admission
• Standard of proof
• Evaluation of expert evidence