Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voluntariness of interview

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2023

HKSAR v. FADONOUGBO FREJUS LEZIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 808
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2022

The judge correctly and comprehensively directed the jury on the voluntariness of the recorded interview and other evidential issues and the first three grounds of appeal lacked merit; the fourth ground (discharge of the first jury) raised a question of general importance to the administration of justice and therefore leave to appeal was granted to permit full appellate consideration of when discharge is appropriate and the consequences, if any, for a subsequent conviction.
22 Dec 2017

香港特別行政區訴朱峻瑋

Citation

香港特別行政區訴朱峻瑋
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA454/2016

Section 59(1A)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance covers conduct that causes a computer to operate not as its owner intended and includes adding data or occupying bandwidth; the evidence (forensic image of iMac linked to IP, browser history, emails and the appellant's recorded admissions) sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the 6,652 requests and therefore committed misuse of a computer constituting criminal damage; appeal dismissed.
12 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHU CHIU SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU CHIU SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA604/2015

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate correctly found the record of interview to be voluntary and admissible, properly assessed and accepted the complainant's credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, rejected consent, and imposed a sentence that was not excessive given the aggravating factors; procedural abandonment did not alter the requirement to dismiss the appeal under s117.
3 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. CHU KIN SHAN CHRISTOPHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU KIN SHAN CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC285/2013

The Judge's unequivocal finding that there was no evidence the applicant was a drug addict was incorrect in light of available indirect evidence; that error was material because it underpinned her assessment of other circumstantial evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe. The proviso could not be applied because the error cast doubt on the correctness of other findings. Accordingly the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered because there remained sufficient evidence capable of supporting a trafficking charge.
4 Aug 2010

HKSAR v. NG KAN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. NG KAN WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC377/2009

The court accepted the trial judge's factual findings preferring the prosecution witnesses over the defence account; it held the videotaped interview was given voluntarily, there was no proven inducement, threat or rejection of legal advice that vitiated voluntariness, and no basis existed to exercise the residual discretion to exclude the statement; accordingly the application for leave to appeal convictions was dismissed.
14 Oct 2009

HKSAR v. LEE SIN SAU

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SIN SAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA127/2009

The appeal is allowed because there was at least some real doubt as to whether P8 was given voluntarily: the unusual presence of a co-suspect during the interview and the trial magistrate's apparent insufficient consideration of PW2's lack of candour created doubt about admissibility of P8; because the whole case depended on P8, D2's conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
17 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. TANG SIU CHUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG SIU CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC67/2007

Errors in the handwritten record were trivial matters of weight; the recorded interview was voluntary and complied with the Rules and Directions; there was no pre-interview evidential threshold met to trigger restrictions on questioning; the trial judge was entitled to accept the interviewing officer and reject the defence witness; accordingly the record was admissible and the appeal fails.
29 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. NG SIU CHAU

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SIU CHAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA617/1998

The magistrate's factual findings at trial — that the seized notes recorded multiple bets at different times, that the accused was advised of his rights, and that the first recorded interview was made freely and voluntarily after a voir dire — were not shown to be wrong or to have caused prejudice; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
15 Jun 1995

R. v. WONG MING YAU

Citation

R. v. WONG MING YAU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC487/1994

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge correctly found PW3 unreliable and properly excluded the record of interview as a precaution, and that the trial judge could accept the independent eyewitness evidence of PW1 and PW2 which sufficiently supported the conviction for possession of dangerous drugs.