Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cautioning of suspects

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2012

香港特別行政區訴黃開榆

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃開榆
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA545/2011

The trial judge correctly found that ICAC officers in March 2010 were conducting clarification about signatures in an ongoing investigation of a third party and did not have reasonable grounds to treat the appellant as a suspect requiring a caution; the exemplar signatures and subsequent expert handwriting evidence were thus properly obtained and admissible, supporting the conviction which is therefore upheld.
18 Jun 2008

HKSAR v. CHIU WING KAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU WING KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA37/2008

The admission was admissible because, objectively, the police did not yet have reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant when they asked questions at the premises; the magistrate could properly convict based on the admission together with betting records and evidence of internet gambling activity, and the conviction and fine were therefore upheld.
12 Apr 2006

HKSAR v. IP KENNETH

Citation

HKSAR v. IP KENNETH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1161/2005

The magistrate correctly found PW1's attempt to detain the appellant lawful under s.101(2) and common law because there were reasonable grounds (objective test) and the appellant must have known why he was being detained; failure to state the reason contemporaneously did not render the arrest unlawful; the appellant's use of force was unreasonable and not self-defence; any failure by the police officer to caution was an oversight and the magistrate properly exercised discretion to admit the statement given lack of mala fides, the appellant's experience and the innocuous or non-conclusive natu…
17 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC42/1999

The trial judge correctly found the contested videoed interviews and reconstructions to be voluntary and admissible; breaches of the Rules and Directions do not automatically render a confession inadmissible and exclusion for unfairness is a rare residual discretion which was properly not exercised; permitting the complainant to give evidence by video link under s79B(4) CPO was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Therefore the convictions are safe and leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. LI YAU FUK

Citation

HKSAR v. LI YAU FUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA347/1999

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate, having considered all circumstances including the lack of a caution, reasonably found the appellant's pre-caution statements voluntary on the evidence; a breach of Rule II does not by itself render statements inadmissible and the magistrate's factual credibility findings were open on the record.
13 Jun 1997

R. v. CHAN KWOK HUNG

Citation

R. v. CHAN KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA358/1997

The learned magistrate properly found the confession to be voluntary based on the record and witness evidence, rejected the allegation of assault and planting, and therefore the admission was rightly admitted and the conviction is safe; leave to appeal is refused.
12 Mar 1996

THE QUEEN v. KWOK CHEUNG KA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KWOK CHEUNG KA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA100/1996

Because there was a real doubt as to the safety of the conviction arising from the failure to address the voluntariness/admissibility of the appellant's statements and from inconsistent and inadequately explained credibility findings concerning a defence witness, the conviction could not stand and the appeal had to be allowed (Gall J).

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 黃開榆

HKSAR v. CHIU WING KAI

HKSAR v. IP KENNETH

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

HKSAR v. LI YAU FUK

R. v. CHAN KWOK HUNG

THE QUEEN v. KWOK CHEUNG KA

香港特別行政區訴黃開榆