Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hearsay exceptions

Legal area

Court

6 Jul 2000

WONG SHU KWAN, JOHNNY v. THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG SHU KWAN, JOHNNY v. THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL135/2000

The magistrate's committal was lawful because there was prima facie evidence, independent of the challenged statements, to support a finding that the applicant was party to the conspiracy and offences; statements properly viewed as made in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible and, even with exclusion of inadmissible passages, the remaining evidence (telephone links, witness testimony, motive, conduct) was sufficient to warrant committal under s.10(6)(b).
18 Apr 1996

R. v. FATEH MOHAMMAD (alias HABIB SHAH)

Citation

R. v. FATEH MOHAMMAD (alias HABIB SHAH)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC220/1994

The conviction was safe because independent and corroborative evidence (testimony of prosecution co‑operator Leung, ICAC surveillance including Ramshaw and observer Valiant, physical evidence) made any hearsay or summing‑up irregularity immaterial; the proviso applies and no prejudice to applicant arose; unproven allegations against ICAC do not render conviction unsafe.
13 Aug 1980

THE QUEEN v. MA KWOK-KUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MA KWOK-KUEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC88/1980

The District Court held that under Hong Kong common law the official shorthand writers who personally recorded and transcribed portions of a prior trial may adduce those portions in subsequent proceedings where their only recollection is contained in those notes/transcripts; s.44 Crimes Ordinance is a statutory convenience for perjury trials but does not displace the common-law means of proof.
28 Jul 1975

THE QUEEN v. R. STURGEON

Citation

THE QUEEN v. R. STURGEON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC85/1975

The paid bank drafts and corresponding entries in the Hang Seng Bank's registers constitute business records within s.22; the indorsements on 22 drafts (groups I and II) are admissible under s.22 because the circumstances and ledger references permit the irresistible inference that the Northern Bank (beyond the seas) adopted those indorsements and its officers cannot reasonably be expected to testify; the remaining 18 drafts lack sufficient relevance and critical indicia to permit a reasonable inference that their proceeds were credited to the accused and are therefore inadmissible (excluded…

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG SHU KWAN, JOHNNY v. THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND ANOTHER

R. v. FATEH MOHAMMAD (alias HABIB SHAH)

THE QUEEN v. MA KWOK-KUEN

THE QUEEN v. R. STURGEON