Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissions/confessions

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴黃皓恆

Citation

[2026] HKCA 462
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC365/2025

Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable, let alone very high, prospect of success on his proposed conviction and sentence appeals; the trial judge's handling of evidence and admissions did not reveal the legal error alleged under Thongjai; the remand custody credit issue is administrative under s67A and not a proper basis for bail; family or mental stresses did not outweigh these factors.
10 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴何偉強

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA375/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly accepted the independent eyewitnesses and the appellant's contemporaneous admissions; the fresh photographs were irrelevant or post‑dated the incident and lacked explanation; credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence; consequently the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
20 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴周祖貴

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA404/2020

The dashcam footage objectively corroborated PW1's and PW2's testimony by showing simultaneous vibration and collision sounds, the trial judge's credibility findings were within his advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses and were rational, and on the whole evidence the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction stands.
8 Mar 2019

香港特別行政區訴曾子熙又名曾佳源

Citation

[2019] HKCA 307
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC180/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant withdrew the conviction appeal and, in any event, had made admissions and a confession under caution leaving no arguable basis to challenge conviction; on sentence the original judge had already given a lenient term (28 months) for a minor role so there was no reasonable prospect of reducing it by the 2–3 months sought.
17 May 2012

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2011

Even if the trial judge erred by stating at the special issue stage that he was satisfied the applicants had made the inculpatory remarks, the error was technical and not prejudicial in context of overwhelming evidence linking the applicants to the attack; admissions were held to be voluntary and admissible and, in any event, the proviso in s83(1) CPO would apply to uphold the convictions and sentences.
20 Sept 2007

HKSAR v. LO CHEUK HIM

Citation

HKSAR v. LO CHEUK HIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA384/2007

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction because the magistrate failed to identify, assess and resolve a material discrepancy in the prosecution witness's evidence between examination-in-chief and cross-examination and failed to consider the essential element of intention/knowledge to possess; those failures rendered the conviction unsafe.
23 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU HONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU HONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC399/2002

The judge's directions were adequate to require the jury to be satisfied the admissions were made and true; the threshold for using an accomplice's acquittal to impeach credibility under Wong Sau Ming was not met; the fleeting mention of absconding was properly left unemphasised in the exercise of judicial discretion; any stay application based on missing transcripts would have failed due to the applicant's absconding and therefore no prejudice arose, so the leave application was without merit and dismissed with three months loss of time under s83W CPO.
18 Nov 2004

HKSAR v. CHAN SUI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SUI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC125/2004

The Court found the trial judge correctly admitted the appellant's verbal admission, accepted the contemporaneous eyewitness and medical evidence that the appellant threw a chopper causing the injury, and concluded the proposed fresh evidence would not have cast doubt on the safety of the conviction; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
15 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. LE VAN HONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LE VAN HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA927/1998

Non-compliance with s.27(3)(b) and (c) did not invalidate the conviction because the amendment merely formalized an allegation that had been part of the prosecution case from the start, the appellant had adequate opportunity during trial to meet that allegation and no prejudice resulted; therefore the provisions were treated as directory in the circumstances and the conviction was upheld.
3 Nov 1998

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PUI CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC706/1997

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's summing-up cured any potential prejudice from the 'target' remark, correctly instructed the jury on possession including that keys are only a factor, properly cautioned the jury about oral admissions after a voir dire and admissibility ruling, and the applicant's new factual points were late, unsubstantiated and not appropriate fresh evidence on appeal; therefore no miscarriage of justice was shown.