Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Immunity from prosecution

Legal area

Court

6 May 2010

HKSAR v. YING JIM MING, JIMMY AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. YING JIM MING, JIMMY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA432/2009

s.61(4) ICSO is not unconstitutional in principle and, on the facts, nondisclosure of interception product did not cause shown prejudice making a stay necessary; the magistrate properly conducted voir dire, admitted contested evidence lawfully, and reasonably found the accomplice witness CHU credible despite non-material discrepancies; the evidence sufficed to convict each appellant, so appeals dismissed.
27 Feb 2009

WONG CHI KING v. HKSAR

Citation

WONG CHI KING v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2008

The trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion to give a cautionary direction in the terms used because the weaknesses in the complainant's evidence (including immunity and her police enquiry) were obvious to the jury from the evidence, the summing up as a whole adequately warned the jury to be cautious, and any failure to further explain reasons did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
23 May 2008

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC252/2006

The court held that the application did not raise any point of law of great and general importance warranting a certificate under s32(2) Cap.484; the trial judge's direction to the jury to consider the witness's concessions with care and that she testified under immunity was sufficient, and a specific detailed warning was not required in the circumstances.
21 Dec 2007

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI KING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC252/2006

The judge's directions were adequate: the complainant was not shown to be a witness seeking to withdraw a false account, the enquiry to police was in passing and did not neutralise immunity which related only to theft, and the summing up sufficiently alerted the jury to the risks of relying on the complainant's evidence; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction (and the related application against sentence) was dismissed.
18 Dec 2007

HKSAR v TSE HOI PAN, DOMINIC

Citation

HKSAR v TSE HOI PAN, DOMINIC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC368/2006

The judge's repeated remonstration that the immunised witness had 'lied' and that her immunity might be 'torn up', expressed in colloquial terms a lay witness could reasonably understand as meaning she must adhere to her prior police statement to avoid losing immunity; that created a material irregularity because it could have induced tailored testimony affecting the jury's assessment of key incriminating evidence; the court could not safely apply the proviso, therefore leave to appeal was granted and the conviction quashed, with a hearing to determine retrial.
21 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. NG SHUK HA, STONEY

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SHUK HA, STONEY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1229/2005

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly accepted the prosecution witnesses and banking evidence, was entitled to succinctly reject the defence witness, and the single discrepancy between PW1 and PW2 was immaterial to the verdict; the magistrate's reasons were adequate in substance to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
22 Jul 2005

RE CHIN KAM CHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

RE CHIN KAM CHIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2004

Although the summing up inadequately encapsulated defence points specific to each defendant, the evidence that 25 letters of credit were issued without underlying transactions and that defendants appreciated the resulting risk to the bank was overwhelming; the trial judge's directions on law, immunities and expert evidence were broadly correct; any irregularity did not cause miscarriage of justice and the proviso to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance permits dismissal of the appeals against conviction.
6 Nov 2003

HKSAR v. CHENG HIU FUNG SUNNY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG HIU FUNG SUNNY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC59/2003

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge lawfully and properly assessed the immunity witnesses individually, was entitled to reject PW8 yet accept PWs5,6,7, and the convictions for charges 5,6 and 7 are safe without requiring handwriting expert corroboration since the prosecution proved the applicant arranged for false employment letters knowing they were false and intended them to be used to obtain credit.
20 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. LEUNG KAI CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KAI CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC96/2000

Oral, vague and conditional immunities (tied to witness statements) combined with judicial reminders of a right against self-incrimination created a material irregularity that prejudiced the defence and rendered the conviction unsafe; the conviction and sentence were therefore quashed and a retrial ordered.
2 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. KWOK KAM LAN

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK KAM LAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC460/1999

Significant, irreconcilable inconsistencies between the applicant's verbal admission and the accomplice's evidence, together with investigative and evidential deficiencies (including lack of recording and omissions by officers), created a real doubt as to the safety of the convictions; the Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to intervene and quash the convictions on counts 1 and 3.