Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Confession

  • 6 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. LEUNG WING FUNG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 1018
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC324/2018

    Replaying the video-recorded interview in the summing-up was a permissible exercise because the video is the evidence and was replayed so the jury could reassess it with full knowledge of defence allegations; the judge gave full and proper directions on confessional material and on how to treat absence of records; the complaints about specific comments and alleged omissions were either unarguable or did not demonstrate prejudice or lack of balance such as to found a reasonably arguable appeal or a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.

  • 29 Jun 2016

    HKSAR v. MBACHU CHARLES SUNDAY

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MBACHU CHARLES SUNDAY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC307/2009

    The Court refused the nullity application because the applicant failed to prove that the Notice of Abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act: his explanations were inconsistent and delayed, a prior nullity application had failed, the co-defendant's identical appeal had been dismissed, and the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive; therefore the abandonment stands and the application is refused.

  • 28 Nov 2007

    HKSAR v. WONG CHAK MAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG CHAK MAN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC210/2006

    The appeal was dismissed because the impugned evidence (PW2's account of PW1's remark about height) was admissible only to explain police conduct and there is no indication the judge relied on that hearsay for conviction; the conviction properly rested on the appellant's voluntary and credible confessions which the trial judge accepted.

  • 9 Nov 2007

    HKSAR v. LIM KHI CHONG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LIM KHI CHONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC159/2007

    The court held the sentencing judge had taken the applicant's offer to plead guilty and confession into account and, given the minimal nature of the provocation, the deliberate manual strangulation, theft and attempted concealment by fire, the 10-year sentence was within the appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  • 6 Sept 2006

    HKSAR v. JARHIA KULDEEP SINGH

    Citation
    HKSAR v. JARHIA KULDEEP SINGH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC96/2006

    The judge erred by treating the appellant's silence as an 'unlikely reaction' and thereby impermissibly using silence against him; accordingly the trafficking conviction was quashed and substituted with a conviction for possession, and a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre report was ordered before sentencing pursuant to section 54A Cap.134.

  • 4 Apr 2006

    HKSAR v. CHENG FUK WA

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHENG FUK WA
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC442/2005

    The trial judge properly accepted the voluntariness and reliability of the applicant's videotaped admissions, corroborated by his conduct in taking police to relevant locations and the similarity of clothing to the victim's description; those findings made the conviction safe. On sentence, the judge correctly applied the 7-year starting point per Mo Kwong-sang and properly reduced it by one year for youth and clear record, making six years not manifestly excessive.

  • 18 Oct 2005

    HKSAR v. YEE HING CHUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YEE HING CHUNG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC287/2005

    The single judge dismissed the applicants' applications because the convictions and sentences were supported by overwhelming evidence (confession, fingerprints, undercover observations) and sentencing was appropriate; D3's leave application was frivolous and warranted an order that two months of her pre-hearing custody not be reckoned as part of her sentence.

  • 31 Aug 2005

    HKSAR v. LEE CHING KAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEE CHING KAI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC544/2003

    The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge may have applied the wrong standard of proof (referring to the balance of probabilities) and there was concern about use of co-defendant interview material; despite strong evidence against the applicant the court declined to apply the proviso and therefore quashed the conviction. Leave to appeal out of time was granted.

  • 3 May 2002

    HKSAR v. LAU KWAI ON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAU KWAI ON
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC67/2001

    The conviction was upheld because the evidence was overwhelming (bloodstained clothing matching the deceased by DNA and admissions recorded in a signed post-record and on video) and the trial judge gave adequate directions to the jury; there were no arguable grounds of appeal and sentence is governed by mandatory life imprisonment under Cap. 212 s.2.

  • 9 Aug 2001

    HKSAR v. SIU YUK PIU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SIU YUK PIU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC62/2001

    The Court of Appeal found the trial judge materially misdirected herself by failing to recognise that PW1 had agreed in cross-examination that he had given the black plastic bag to the applicant to look at, a fact that could explain the presence of the applicant's fingerprint and which rendered the conviction unsafe; therefore the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.