Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissions and confessions

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2023

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN HIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1176
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2019

Failure to direct the jury that a prior inconsistent out-of-court statement (MFI-3) could not be used as evidence of its truth but only for assessing the witness's credibility was a material irregularity in the circumstances of this case (notably the acquittal on Count 1 and disparate verdicts); the omission rendered the conviction unsafe, the proviso to s83(1) was not applied, and the appeal must be allowed with conviction and sentence set aside.
26 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. YIU CHI MING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 99
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2018

The appeal is dismissed: no inferential‑reasoning direction was required because the prosecution did not present a standalone circumstantial case; and although the Mushtaq direction was not given in the verbatim structured form of the specimen, when viewed as a whole in the factual and procedural context of the trial the judge sufficiently conveyed the essential Mushtaq principles so the conviction is not unsafe.
30 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴林彥邦

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA215/2019

The magistrate did not change the prosecution case; unchallenged objective evidence (dashcam/CCTV/witnesses) and expert opinion established a pattern of drowsy driving such that the appellant should have realised he was unfit yet continued to drive, which met the statutory test for dangerous driving under s.37; the same evidence and contemporaneous circumstances supported the conclusion that he knew of the collision and failed to stop; the magistrate lawfully admitted and weighed the post‑event statements.
28 May 2020

HKSAR v. LAU KA SHING

Citation

[2020] HKCA 396
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC292/2018

The appellant’s allegations that police officers planted drugs and fabricated admissions were serious imputations against prosecution witnesses and therefore engaged s54(1)(f)(ii); the trial judge lawfully exercised his discretion in allowing limited cross-examination on previous convictions and properly directed the jury that prior convictions bore only on credibility; there was no error of principle or absence of material justifying interference so leave to appeal against conviction is refused and the appeal is dismissed; the sentence was within judicial discretion and the appeal against se…
1 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LAU KA SHING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1228
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC292/2018

Leave to appeal against conviction refused because the trial judge gave directions consistent with Specimen Direction 39 and properly exercised discretion to permit cross-examination on previous convictions; leave to appeal against sentence granted because the arithmetic enhancement to the starting point (and its justification by asserted export intention despite the applicant being a mule) warranted further appellate scrutiny.
16 Oct 2018

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN HIN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 712
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC339/2017

The judge materially failed to give the mandatory structured Mushtaq/Specimen Direction 39.1 required when admissions are contested as possibly induced or fabricated; because the admissions were central to the prosecution case this omission rendered the conviction unsafe and warranted quashing and a retrial.
23 Apr 2018

香港特別行政區訴張智敏

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA417/2017

The trial magistrate gave sufficient and coherent reasons for accepting PW5 and PW2 as honest and reliable; the court properly interpreted PW5's reference to 'remained silent' as relating to the recording interview rather than the scene; there was ample corroborative evidence (notebook entries, video, and reports) to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction was not unsafe and the appeal must be dismissed.
5 Oct 2012

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAN YIN, VIEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAN YIN, VIEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA513/2011

The magistrate, having heard all witnesses, properly found the admissions were made and voluntary and made factual credibility findings; those findings are factual determinations that the appellate court will not disturb absent clear error, and no such error was shown; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Nov 2010

HKSAR v. NG SIU TING

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SIU TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA29/2010

The court found the magistrate rightly accepted the credibility of PW1, PW2 and PW3; the appellant's post‑record and cautioned interview were voluntary and understood by her; any procedural irregularity did not produce unfairness sufficient to exclude admissions; the psychiatric evidence did not establish incapacity to make or understand admissions; therefore the conviction for theft was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
9 Mar 2010

HKSAR v. OKAFOR PETER ERIC NWABUNWANNE

Citation

HKSAR v. OKAFOR PETER ERIC NWABUNWANNE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC63/2008

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the required principles for assessing out-of-court admissions (as set out in the Specimen Direction), an omission that materially affected the safety of the verdict; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. A retrial was ordered in the public interest given the serious offence and strong evidence.