Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confession admissibility

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃志偉

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA269/2022

The trial judge correctly admitted and relied on P9 as prima facie authentic and relevant when considered with PW1-PW3 and scene photos; the witnesses' evidence was credible and supported the only reasonable inference that the appellant attempted to record indecent images in a public changing room; on re-hearing the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and therefore dismisses the appeal and upholds conviction and sentence.
13 Sept 2024

HKSAR v. LI CHEUK WAH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 466
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC135/2021

Evidence of an accused’s statements and conduct during a controlled delivery is prima facie prejudicial because it is produced under instruction and surveillance and may be unreliable; such evidence should only be admitted if the accused gave informed voluntary consent (including appropriate warnings) and, even then, admission is subject to a fairness assessment. In the present case the controlled delivery material was unfairly prejudicial and should not have been admitted; conviction was therefore unsafe and a retrial was ordered.
26 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴李德山

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1021
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA246/2021

The trial judge's findings that the appellant's trial testimony was unreliable and that his recorded confession (P13) was proved were entitled to full weight; on re‑hearing of the evidence the prosecution proved all elements of fraud beyond reasonable doubt; the application to admit fresh evidence was properly refused because the documents could and should have been produced at trial and would not have altered the verdict.
23 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. LAM HOI KIT

Citation

[2024] HKCA 719
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC63/2023

Leave to appeal refused: the summing-up read as a whole adequately instructed the jury on burden and standard of proof and on how to treat the applicant's evidence and confession so the absence of a discrete Liberato direction was not a material irregularity; sentencing to 27 years was within proper exercise of discretion given the organiser/manager role, cross-border nature, recruitment and exploitation of two young women and the applicant's relevant prior conviction.
30 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴吳詠澤

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2073
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA300/2023

法院在重審全部證據（包括五段CCTV及會面紀錄P8）後認為控方證供誠實可靠，P8係自願錄得且可呈堂，閉路電視片段直接證明上訴人在貨架內取得被盜電話，合併足以在毫無合理疑點下證明盜竊罪，故駁回上訴，維持定罪及原判處。
14 Mar 2023

香港特別行政區訴呂鳳宝

Citation

[2023] HKCA 349
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2021

The Court held the trial judge's directions, viewed in full and against the factual context, complied with the applicable jury guidance in force at trial and did not mislead the jury; any lack of elaboration was explicable by the evidence and did not create a real risk of prejudice. The totality of the evidence — including appellant's admissions, telephone records, co‑defendant testimony and environmental facts — permitted a rational jury to find knowledge, control and intent to supply; therefore the conviction and sentence were upheld.
7 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. KWAN TAT YEE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1021
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC213/2018

Read as a whole the trial judge's summing‑up properly and adequately conveyed the relevant legal principles (Mushtaq/Liberato and burden/standard of proof), the applicant's interview contained an unequivocal admission he took the knife, a Liberato direction was not required on these facts, and there was no real prejudice rendering the conviction unsafe; leave to appeal was refused and the appeals dismissed.
26 Oct 2022

香港特別行政區訴梁潮潤

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1600
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC229/2019

The trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the legal and factual interplay between alleged coercion, maintenance of the right to silence and the limited admissibility of delay‑in‑complaint evidence (availment use), and wrongly characterised the absence of fingerprint evidence as simply 'neutral' despite evidence that prints had been sought and none found; those errors were material and deprived the jury of proper direction, requiring quashing of the convictions and remittal for retrial.
21 Jul 2022

香港特別行政區訴 L.W.H.

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1088
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error or unfairness in the trial judge's legal directions or evidence summary; the jury properly considered the complainant's inconsistencies and accepted the prosecution case; the record shows no basis to admit the appeal, therefore the application for leave to appeal is refused.
18 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴鄧皓文及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 167
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC40/2017

The court held that the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury about the effect of asserted police oppression on a co-accused's recorded confession: where the jury conclude oppression occurred the confession must be discarded regardless of whether parts of it appear true (Mushtaq principle). That error rendered the conviction of the second applicant unsafe; leave to appeal and the appeal were allowed for him and his conviction quashed. By contrast the first applicant's challenges failed because the trial judge repeatedly and adequately directed the jury that the co-accused's confessi…