Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of interviews

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. ADIRANGAM RAHMATHULLAH ASIF AHMAD

Citation

HKSAR v. ADIRANGAM RAHMATHULLAH ASIF AHMAD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC301/2012

The Court upheld the trial judge’s credibility findings and discretionary rulings: the video interview and consent to search were voluntary and properly administered with interpreters and notices; the seized documents were lawfully obtained; the evidence permitted only the inference that the applicant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of an indictable offence under s.25 Cap.455; and the aggregate sentence reflected appropriate deterrence and culpability given the amounts and the applicant’s role, therefore leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was dis…
7 Jan 2014

HKSAR v. CHEN QIANXIA

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEN QIANXIA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC57/2013

Conviction quashed because the trial judge wrongly applied the s47 presumptions as if they imposed a persuasive burden on the defendant and also improperly invited adverse inference from the defendant's exercise of the right to silence; those errors rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing and ordering a retrial.
30 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. LUI MEI CHI AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI MEI CHI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC248/2007

The judge made explicit, supported findings that the applicants knowingly submitted false documents to induce the Government to award the contract and realised the consequences; those findings satisfy the mens rea for conspiracy to defraud (intention to put economic interests at risk) under binding authority, so there was no error in law or direction and the leave application fails.
21 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. CHING KHEI CHEONG, CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHING KHEI CHEONG, CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1070/2001

The convictions were unsafe because the magistrate failed to explain why he accepted parts of the testimony of key prosecution witnesses while rejecting other parts central to the case, and he did not apply the correct approach to possession by drawing an inference from primary facts rather than assuming knowledge as a matter of law; accordingly the convictions were quashed and sentences set aside, with no retrial in the public interest.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. ADIRANGAM RAHMATHULLAH ASIF AHMAD

HKSAR v. CHEN QIANXIA

HKSAR v. LUI MEI CHI AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHING KHEI CHEONG, CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER