Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accomplice evidence and immunity

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2020

HKSAR v. CHU SHUN HANG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 90
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC243/2016

The conviction was safe because the jury were properly warned about and directed to assess the accomplice PW1's evidence which provided direct evidence of a meeting of minds; the alleged summing-up errors were unfounded and taken in context; call records were admitted facts and not improperly introduced; particulars alleging multiple drugs were not a fatal irregularity; the applicant failed to justify an extension of time to appeal sentence and the 15-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's central role and scale of the conspiracy.
17 Mar 2009

HKSAR v. YUK MAN CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YUK MAN CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC420/2007

No appealable error was demonstrated: the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the law of conspiracy, burden and standard of proof, properly dealt with accomplice evidence given under immunity and with contested admissions; the allegations of impropriety, misdirection and ineffective assistance lacked substance, so the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.
20 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. SAU MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SAU MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC145/2003

The court held the trial judge correctly assessed and cautioned the testimony of an immunity accomplice, used prior statements only to evaluate credibility and not as substantive corroboration, and correctly relied on contemporaneous banking and documentary evidence to uphold most convictions; however the evidence specific to Charge 11 (two Rolex watches alleged to have been given to D2) was insufficiently supported and the conviction on that charge was unsafe and therefore quashed, with remaining convictions and sentences otherwise affirmed and adjusted accordingly.
1 Aug 2000

HKSAR v. LAM CHOI LAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM CHOI LAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/1999

The Court held that the invoices were documents made or required for an accounting purpose within s19(1)(a) of the Theft Ordinance, the applicant participated in and concurred in falsifying those invoices knowing they were false and intended their use to obtain letters of credit, and therefore the convictions for false accounting were safe; acquittals on separate conspiracy charges did not render the convictions unsound; application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
8 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. CHOW KAM TAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW KAM TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC599/1999

The Court held the trial judge gave fair, adequate and balanced directions; the confessions and accomplice evidence were properly admitted and sufficient to support the convictions; the combined quantity of heroin (284.92g) fell within the sentencing guideline justifying a total term of 14 years, and thus the convictions and sentences were upheld and leave to appeal refused.
2 May 1997

R. v. WONG SUET TAN, CONNIE

Citation

R. v. WONG SUET TAN, CONNIE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC698/1996

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments, accepted that the judge had considered the Ghosh test, found there was ample evidence of a deliberate scheme to defraud and concluded the convictions were not unsafe or unsatisfactory, therefore dismissing the application.
23 Feb 1988

THE QUEEN v. NG WAH-KAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG WAH-KAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC475/1987

Leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the jury, properly directed including standard accomplice warnings, rejected the applicant's defence; the concurrent sentences of 12 years were not manifestly excessive as the appellant was the instigator, the offences were premeditated and vicious, the totality principle was correctly applied and disparity with accomplices' sentences did not merit interference where sentences were not imposed contemporaneously.
20 Oct 1983

THE QUEEN v. MOHAMMAD AKBAR

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOHAMMAD AKBAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC589/1983

The Court allowed the appeal because, after rejection of the key accomplice's evidence and given the narrow supporting facts and plausible innocent explanations (including language barrier and claimed medical purpose), there remained a lurking doubt and the conviction based on inference was unsafe; conviction and sentence were set aside.