Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confessions and admissions

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴方智勇

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1513
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA208/2023

The court accepted the trial judge's finding that the appellant's cautioned admissions were voluntary and reliable, rejected the appellant's inconsistent general testimony as inherently improbable, and held that the limited CCTV clips did not negate the admissions; accordingly the judge's evaluation of the totality of evidence supported a finding of theft with intent to permanently deprive and the conviction was safe and should be affirmed.
23 Aug 2023

HKSAR v. TSUI LOK HIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 998
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/2019

The impugned remarks did not undermine the appellant's right to silence or amount to an adverse comment because there was no evidence of assault, the judge properly directed the jury on the right of silence and on assessing admissions and oppression, and when the summing-up is read as a whole the trial remained fair; accordingly the conviction and sentence were safe and the appeal was dismissed.
2 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. CHUKWUEMEKA KWELI EMEKA

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUKWUEMEKA KWELI EMEKA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC491/2000

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the evidence presented at trial (witness identification, admissions, cap hairs, and DNA bloodstains) was sufficient for a jury properly directed to convict; no legal error in the judge's summing‑up or trial procedure warranted appellate intervention, and the mandatory life sentence for murder must be affirmed.
9 Feb 1993

CHUNG TAN FONG v. R.

Citation

CHUNG TAN FONG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC24/1992

The Court held the trial judge did not err: on the voir dire the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the five statements were voluntary, the judge did not shift the burden to the applicant, he properly assessed and rejected the allegations of police brutality (medical evidence was inconclusive and the magistrate complaint was not repeated on oath), and minor discrepancies in police evidence were immaterial; therefore the application for leave to appeal out of time was refused.
17 May 1989

THE QUEEN v. WONG SAI WAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG SAI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC415/1988

Cross-examination of the accused on statements made to psychologists and psychiatrists during a voir dire challenging voluntariness was permissible because such statements were directly relevant to the credibility and voluntariness inquiry; no separate compartmentalised voir dire was required and no unfairness was demonstrated that would warrant exclusion; appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.
15 Aug 1986

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI-SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI-SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC296/1986

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's adverse credibility finding related narrowly to the circumstances of the taking of statements, such findings are routine and did not amount to unfairness that would justify appellate intervention.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 方智勇

HKSAR v. TSUI LOK HIN

HKSAR v. CHUKWUEMEKA KWELI EMEKA

CHUNG TAN FONG v. R.

THE QUEEN v. WONG SAI WAI

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI-SANG

香港特別行政區訴方智勇