Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of exhibits

Legal area

Court

18 May 2022

HKSAR v. FUNG SIU LUNG JOE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 668
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC73/2021

The judge correctly treated the weight discrepancies and alleged tampering as factual matters for the jury rather than grounds for a voir dire on admissibility of the exhibits; the voir dire on the voluntariness of admissions was properly conducted and the admissions were rightly admitted; the judge properly rejected the no case submission because credibility and chain of custody issues were matters for the jury; the summing-up adequately addressed burden, admissions and weight discrepancy issues; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
7 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. LAU WING WING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1312
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC243/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant’s grounds disclosed a reasonably arguable case: the jury were not pressured (no enforced time limit), the shoulder‑bag issue was fully addressed and left to the jury, and the telephone point was not pursued at trial so cannot form a basis for appeal.
19 Jun 2018

香港特別行政區訴陸志榮

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA147/2017

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and factual inferences because they were supported by objective evidence (notably CCTV) and not perverse; the judge lawfully managed evidence and questioning of an unrepresented accused; on the objective standard the appellant's conduct in the building amounted to loitering that reasonably caused fear, therefore conviction stands.
13 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The Court excluded electronic materials that were irrelevant to the counts or whose prejudicial effect outweighed probative value, allowed certain items subject to redaction and further submissions, and required the prosecution to provide a case summary and further and better particulars so the defence and Court could properly assess relevance and admissibility of digital materials.
19 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. SUN YUK LING

Citation

HKSAR v. SUN YUK LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC228/2015

The VRI (VDP6), the Post Record (VDP4) and the mobile phone exhibit (VDP9) are inadmissible because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary and the exhibit provenance was reliable: the defendant was subjected to oppressive detention and questioning (overnight in an interview room without adequate rest or supervision, questioning in the small hours, uncautioned rehearsal and inducement), and the chain of custody for the mobile phone was fatally defective.
26 May 2014

HKSAR v. PANG SHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG SHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC193/2013

The appellate court concluded the trial judge was entitled to find the victim's identification of the applicant as Ho reliable given prolonged close contact, interactive conversation and threatening conduct that left a deep impression, corroborative physical evidence found in the flat (business cards, letter of intent, poker paraphernalia, resident card, cash) and the applicant's presence and connection to the flat; accordingly the conviction was not unsafe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
13 Aug 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2013

No sufficient basis to join Lee or to permit the plaintiff to represent him without Lee's verified consent or personal application; plaintiff's applications to adjourn and to file further affidavits were premature or repetitive and lacked material change in circumstances; defendant's service was properly effected and prior dismissed applications cannot be collaterally re‑litigated; accordingly P's 7th and 9th Summonses dismissed, P's 8th Summons dismissed except retrospective leave granted for two specified affidavits dated 19 July 2013; costs ordered against plaintiff.
22 Nov 2006

HKSAR v. KWOK CHEUK KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK CHEUK KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA861/2006

The warrant card's express statement that the officer was authorized by the Authority to carry out work under the Hotel and Guesthouse Ordinance constituted sufficient "authorization in writing" for s.18 purposes; the magistrate properly found there was no express requirement by the appellant for production of written authorization or ID at the time; the procedural step of exhibiting a photocopy did not amount to a material irregularity warranting interference. Accordingly the conviction was affirmed.
16 May 2001

HKSAR v. CHAN HUNG SING, DESMOND

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HUNG SING, DESMOND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA10/2001

Where threats to disclose sensitive personal information are made with an intention that a reasonable trier of fact can infer is criminal, and where publication coupled with supporting documents could injure reputation and cause fear, such conduct constitutes criminal intimidation; the magistrate's acceptance of the complainant's evidence and consideration of exhibits was proper and the convictions stand.
31 May 1996

KWOK SIU WA v. R.

Citation

KWOK SIU WA v. R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA689/1995

Appeal dismissed because the trial Magistrate properly applied caution to accomplice evidence and there was sufficient independent corroboration — the appellant's handwriting on the medical card and the recorded telephone calls, supported by telecom records and context, legitimately linked the appellant to PW1 and rendered the conviction and sentence safe.