Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpreter issues

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. AGBANYIM EMEKA PRINCE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC261/2021

The court accepted the signed written instructions and Admitted Facts as authentic, found the VRI voluntary and not undermined by the interpreter allegations, concluded the applicant failed to establish flagrant incompetence or credible new evidence, and held the combination of tenancy documents, key and DNA evidence supported the conviction; therefore the renewal application and appeal were dismissed and a three month loss of time order was warranted for abuse of process.
12 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. EBHONUN AKONJIE ALEX

Citation

[2024] HKCA 316
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC163/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the seven grounds advanced were reasonably arguable: the judge's summing-up and directions (including on good character, demeanour and interview reliability) were adequate, the evidence permitted the only reasonable inference of knowledge and conspiracy, and any alleged interpreter/translation issues did not render the evidence unreliable or the convictions unsafe.
23 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. SITHOLE MANDISA NOLIZWE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 101
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC103/2022

Leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the grounds advanced lacked reasonable arguability: the trial judge’s summing‑up fairly summarised the evidence and gave correct directions on burden and standard of proof, the jury were aware of the applicant’s HIV and were properly instructed, no specific examples of prejudicial mistranslation or prosecutorial misconduct were shown, and the jury rationally rejected the defence of lack of knowledge after considering the evidence.
24 Oct 2023

VITHANA PATHIRANNEHELAGE WARUNAPRIYA LAKMAL JAYARATNA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1386/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant admitted relying on the same facts as in his previous, finally determined claim and therefore failed to show any significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of the court's process.
7 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. ALI HAIDAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1872
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/2019

No reasonably arguable grounds for appeal: DNA evidence on two packets could have originated from applicant with extremely low alternative match probability, judge's directions (including on voluntariness and interpreter issues) were adequate when read as a whole, allegations of counsel incompetence were unsupported by trial counsel and solicitor affirmations, and sentence was within the correct range with appropriate enhancement for Form 8; therefore leave to appeal against conviction and leave to appeal against sentence out of time were refused.
17 Jun 2019

M BARA ABAIDI IBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 748
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL61/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board lawfully assessed credibility, relied on country of origin information showing improved conditions and availability of state protection and internal relocation, and there was no basis for the court to intervene on judicial review.
7 Jun 2018

KULDIP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1162
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL504/2017

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for a late filing and, on the merits, the adjudicator and Director had not erred in law or acted unreasonably; the claim was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
27 Oct 2016

HKSAR v. IFEANYICHUKWU HENRY ONYEKA

Citation

HKSAR v. IFEANYICHUKWU HENRY ONYEKA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC55/2016

The prosecution's Summary of Facts established a prima facie connection between the US$3,000 and the applicant's trafficking; the burden shifted to the applicant who failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the money was unconnected; the judge's adverse credibility finding was justified and there was no procedural error, so the forfeiture order of US$3,000 under s56(1) was properly made.
9 May 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN WING YIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WING YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA219/2003

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because contradictions and errors between the Magistrate's oral reasons and written Statement of Findings, including an unresolved mistranslation/confusion about PW2's evidence on swelling, left it impossible to determine what evidence was relied upon and therefore rendered the conviction unsafe.
2 Apr 2003

HKSAR v. SUN CHUN LEI

Citation

HKSAR v. SUN CHUN LEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC476/2002

The Court held the judge was entitled to admit and rely on the records of interview as voluntary and properly interpreted, that the applicant had possession and knowledge of forged credit cards as established by physical evidence, admissions and chemist's report, and that the five‑year concurrent sentence was within proper sentencing range for an active participant in an international organised credit‑card fraud; leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was therefore refused.