Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Confessions and voluntariness

  • 18 May 2022

    HKSAR v. FUNG SIU LUNG JOE

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 668
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC73/2021

    The judge correctly treated the weight discrepancies and alleged tampering as factual matters for the jury rather than grounds for a voir dire on admissibility of the exhibits; the voir dire on the voluntariness of admissions was properly conducted and the admissions were rightly admitted; the judge properly rejected the no case submission because credibility and chain of custody issues were matters for the jury; the summing-up adequately addressed burden, admissions and weight discrepancy issues; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

  • 2 Mar 2021

    香港特別行政區 訴 王敏怡

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 182
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC267/2018

    The Court held that existing common law and authority correctly place the persuasive burden on an accused to establish legal insanity on the balance of probabilities; the trial judge's placement of burdens and questioning of witnesses was lawful and appropriate in principle, but the judge failed to direct the jury to take the applicant's proven mental illness into account when assessing whether she knew the nature of the items and the reliability/voluntariness of her confessions even if the insanity defence was rejected; that omission rendered the conviction unsafe and warranted quashing.

  • 12 Sept 2008

    HKSAR v. LO HON MING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LO HON MING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC107/2007

    The Court held that the trial judge's use of the phrase "reasonably possible" as part of an illustration of common sense was not objectionable and did not undermine the prosecution's burden; the judge properly handled the accused's refusal to answer after confirming the accused understood consequences; the medical evidence did not support allegations of police brutality and therefore confessions were rightly admitted as voluntary; consequently the applicants' grounds failed and the appeals were dismissed (leave refused out of time for D3).

  • 13 Nov 2003

    HKSAR v. LEE CHUNG TAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEE CHUNG TAI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC43/2003

    The Court held the verdicts were not inconsistent because there were clear factual distinctions between the Applicant's and D2's cases (different interviews, different officers, different admitted roles and victims) such that the jury could rationally convict the Applicant on his confession and acquit D2; the trial judge's directions about assessing records of interview and treating co-defendant evidence separately were adequate and there was no duty to give the additional directions sought; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  • 4 Sept 1984

    THE QUEEN v. MA SAI-CHUEN (D1) AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. MA SAI-CHUEN (D1) AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC286/1984

    Leave to appeal by Ma was refused because the trial judge's rulings and directions (on voluntariness of statements, corroboration of accomplice evidence, and jury directions on counselling) were adequate and the provision of transcripts would not have assisted; his sentences were within proper range. Leave to appeal against sentence by Chung was allowed and the sentence reduced from 8 to 5 years because he played a subordinate role, showed post‑arrest cooperation and assistance to the Crown, and the original sentence was disproportionate relative to co‑defendant's sentence and to mitigating c…