Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Co-conspirator hearsay rule

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. CHUA SHIRLEY MASIGLA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 872
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/2018

Leave to appeal was granted only on a single, reasonably arguable mixed question of law and fact — D1's Ground 5 challenging the "shut eye"/turning a blind eye directions on knowledge — because whether that direction was appropriate depended on the facts. Leave was refused on all other grounds of conviction and on all grounds of sentence; some grounds were pure questions of law and thus did not require leave. The sentences were held to be within judicial discretion and not reasonably arguable as unlawful.
23 Oct 2020

HKSAR v. LIN CHI MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC159/2017

D1: Leave to appeal against sentence granted to determine whether the reduced discounts in Ngo Van Nam apply retrospectively; appeal aid certificate granted. D2: Leave to appeal against conviction refused because grounds were not reasonably arguable; the jury were entitled to treat Cheung’s guilty plea and corroborating evidence as establishing knowledge and participation in the conspiracy and the summing-up and directions were proper.
31 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC178/2010

Given the newly revealed, deliberate and repeated serious misconduct by senior ICAC officers in coaching and concealing contacts with key witnesses, D1 was exposed to a real risk of prejudice such that his convictions on conspiracy charges (1–4) were unsafe and must be quashed; Charge 6 failed for insufficient identification. D4's convictions were also quashed because her trial was inseparably affected by the compromise of her husband's trial and the alternative basis of conviction could not be safely treated as independent; notwithstanding the gravity of misconduct, a permanent stay was not…
7 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/2010

The exclusion of the defence expert was appropriate because the opinions relied upon were not shown to derive from a recognised, reliable body of knowledge; the judge did not in fact rely on the co-conspirator hearsay exception but on abundant direct and circumstantial evidence; D1–D5 convictions and associated sentences were supported by irresistible inferences of involvement or reasonable grounds to believe funds were proceeds except D6 where the evidence was insufficient and her conviction and sentence were set aside.
6 Sept 2005

HKSAR v. TSE CHING NG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TSE CHING NG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC361/2004

Joinder and the late direction to acquit on Counts 2 and 3 did not prejudice D1 because the evidence relevant to those counts remained admissible and available on Count 1; the co‑conspirator rule justified use of certain out‑of‑court statements; any minor slips in the summing‑up were not material to the verdicts; however exceptional mitigating factors warranted reducing D1's sentence from four years to two years imprisonment.
1 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. LAW KING YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW KING YIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC369/2003

The court held there was ample independent prima facie evidence linking the applicants to the charged conspiracy (victim witnesses and PW31), therefore co-conspirator statements were admissible; the deputy judge properly assessed identification and witness credibility (notably PW9) and was entitled to convict the 3rd, 4th and 6th applicants; sentencing starting points and reduced discounts for very late guilty pleas were appropriate and within judicial discretion; all applications for leave to appeal were dismissed as lacking merit.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHUA SHIRLEY MASIGLA AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LIN CHI MAN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. TSE CHING NG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LAW KING YIP AND OTHERS