Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Voluntariness of interviews

  • 15 Dec 2022

    HKSAR v. ANDAYA JASMIN MARQUEZ

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3730
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA99/2021

    The court found the appellant's admissions in the record of interview were voluntary and unequivocal and constituted direct evidence of both overstaying and unlawful work; the Inland Revenue documents admitted under s65C did not prove the appellant personally filed returns or received demands or payments before arrest and were of limited weight; the appellant’s single false answer as to length of employment affected credibility only and did not negate the admissions or require a Lucas direction; accordingly the prosecution proved knowledge and breach under s41 beyond reasonable doubt and the…

  • 29 Apr 2020

    HKSAR v. GURUNG, SANDIP AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 458
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA535/2018

    The appeal court held that the magistrate was entitled to refuse costs to D2 and D3 because their voluntary records of interview contained answers that legitimately raised suspicion; however the magistrate erred as to D1 by relying on an excluded record of interview that had been excluded on voluntariness grounds (not merely procedural or technical grounds), and therefore that excluded statement could not be used to refuse costs — D1 is entitled to costs for Charges 1 and 3, taxed if not agreed.

  • 8 Dec 2015

    HKSAR v. CHAN TAM FU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN TAM FU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC363/2014

    Although the judge failed to give the precise 'is or may be true' direction in relation to some mixed out-of-court material and there was a narrow misdirection about how to treat interview admissions, the summing-up as a whole repeatedly and clearly explained the burden and standard of proof and specifically gave the required directions in relation to provocation; taking the whole charge and factual matrix together there was no real risk the jury convicted despite reasonable doubt, so the omission/misdirection was not material and the conviction and life sentence were safe and must be affirme…