Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-disclosure of prosecution material

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2020

HKSAR v. HARPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1439
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/2017

The Court refused renewal of leave and dismissed the appeals because the trial judge's acceptance of PW1 and PW2 was supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; the alleged non-disclosures were immaterial and did not create a real possibility of a different verdict; allegations of counsel incompetence lacked substance and were not pursued; and the applicants failed to comply with court directions such that renewal was not warranted.
7 Jun 2002

LUITEL SHOM PRASAD v. HKSAR

Citation

LUITEL SHOM PRASAD v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC10/2002

The Court found that although non-disclosure of the Octopus Card report was a material irregularity, the irregularity did not affect the fairness of the trial or the result; the High Court judge erred by effectively re‑applying a stay test on appeal, but that error was an irrelevant embellishment that did not undermine the correct core conclusion that the conviction could stand; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed.
3 Dec 1998

HKSAR v. KWAN CHAK SING

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN CHAK SING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC457/1997

The Court found that the undisclosed immigration records were not material on a sensible appraisal and their non-disclosure did not constitute a material irregularity; the judge's directions on lies were proper because deliberate lies on material issues may be considered as evidence of guilt; the confessional statements were properly admitted (ground abandoned) and, on the totality of evidence, the conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
15 Jan 1996

THE QUEEN v. CH\'NG POH

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CH\'NG POH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC333/1994

Leave to adduce additional evidence was refused because the proposed evidence was inadmissible or not well capable of belief and would only impugn credibility of accomplice witnesses without dispositive corroboration; late disclosure of ICAC tapes was an irregularity but not material to the jury's decision because tapes were peripheral and would not have altered overwhelming circumstantial evidence; the summing-up was fair and convictions were safe and therefore appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. HARPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

LUITEL SHOM PRASAD v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. KWAN CHAK SING

THE QUEEN v. CH\'NG POH