Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Out-of-court statements

Legal area

Court

11 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. CHAND GILL

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAND GILL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC219/2014

The Court refused certification because the judge's summing-up, read as a whole, expressly instructed the jury on burden and standard of proof and specifically directed that the prosecution must disprove the defence of accidental buggery beyond reasonable doubt; therefore no unresolved point of great and general importance arose requiring certification that the Liberato principle be separately applied to out-of-court mixed statements in this case.
11 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/2013

Court held that several contested grounds raised matters of law only (thus leave not required under s.82(2)(a)): for the 1st applicant grounds 14–18 were law-only and for the 2nd applicant grounds 10–12 were law-only; mixed law-and-fact grounds (1st ground 19; 2nd grounds 6 and 9) required leave, but leave was granted only where the court found the ground reasonably arguable (1st ground 19 and several other uncontested grounds) and refused leave where grounds were speculative or not reasonably arguable (2nd grounds 6 and 9). Leave to appeal against sentence was granted for both applicants.
14 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. MAK CHAI KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MAK CHAI KWONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC309/2013

Although the trial judge made erroneous findings about who provided the purchase monies, the appellate court held that the judge’s independent and untainted findings that the applicants entered a prior composite scheme of cross‑holding and bogus cross‑leasing established beneficial (financial) interests and dishonest intent to mislead the Government when claiming PTA; those findings rendered the convictions safe and the appeals were dismissed.
17 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. LEUNG TAK WING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG TAK WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/2013

The court found the judge gave a material misdirection by instructing the jury that at least five jurors had to agree on the same factual basis (provocation or unlawful and dangerous act) for any manslaughter verdict; however, the misdirection was held to be non-prejudicial in the circumstances because the logical sequence of issues and the evidence made it inevitable the jury would have convicted of murder, so the conviction was upheld (leave granted but appeal dismissed).
13 May 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN CHE YUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHE YUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC360/2012

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence because the trial judge erred in failing to edit prejudicial incriminating remarks in D2's notebook entry and failed to give adequate jury directions regarding those remarks and D2's out-of-court statements; combined with the prior exclusion of the appellant's own admissions, these errors rendered the conviction unsafe. The court declined to order a retrial after balancing public interest against the appellant's youth and the weakness of the remaining prosecution case.
16 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. HSU MING MEI

Citation

HKSAR v. HSU MING MEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/2011

The Court held that pre‑charge customised statements were admissible as contextual evidence; although the trial judge failed to give a credibility limb of the good‑character direction this was a material irregularity, but applying the proviso to section 83(1) CPO the convictions were nevertheless safe because the judge’s findings rejecting the applicant’s exculpatory accounts were supported by overwhelming and compelling evidence; the sentence of 42 months was appropriate and the appeal against sentence was refused.
6 Dec 2010

RAYMOND CHEN v. HKSAR

Citation

RAYMOND CHEN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2010

The conviction was quashed because the magistrate improperly inquired into and treated the appellant's exercise of the right to silence and his later wholly exculpatory statements as adverse, thereby breaching the right to silence and undermining the burden of proof, and because the High Court judge impermissibly re-assessed credibility on the transcript beyond the permissible scope of a rehearing on the papers, leaving the trial error uncorrected.
17 Aug 2010

HABIB AHMED v. HKSAR

Citation

HABIB AHMED v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2009

The re-opening application was dismissed because the impugned out-of-court allegations were not treated as evidence against the applicant, the Court's conclusion that the applicant was responsible for the murder was based on admissible evidence (seller's testimony and telephone records) and the jury's disbelief of the applicant left no reasonable basis to overturn the conviction; the application therefore lacked foundation.
11 Jun 2010

HKSAR v. TRAN QUI ANN-SANDRA

Citation

HKSAR v. TRAN QUI ANN-SANDRA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA955/2009

The Magistrate misapprehended the record of interview by treating it as inculpatory on the crucial issue of knowledge when read fairly it did not amount to an admission that the appellant knew the drugs were in her pocket; because the conviction was not inevitable on the circumstantial evidence and the interview was wrongly relied upon, the conviction could not stand.
15 Jan 2010

HKSAR v. HUANG XIANG RONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. HUANG XIANG RONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC338/2008

1st applicant: leave refused — no merit in Grounds; judge's directions on burden and on characterisation of his interview were adequate. 2nd applicant: leave granted and convictions quashed because the trial judge materially failed to remind the jury adequately of the exculpatory parts of the 2nd applicant's mixed out-of-court statements and failed to explain their significance for what the 2nd applicant foresaw in the joint enterprise and for availability of a manslaughter verdict; failures amounted to material non-direction making convictions unsafe; retrial ordered.