Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Police misconduct

Legal area

Court

24 May 2023

HKSAR v. TANG YIU CHEONG, JACKIE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 692
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC202/2021

The judge correctly found the plea was voluntary and unequivocal based on medical reports, counsel's evidence and the applicant's admissions; there was no evidence of apparent bias from the change of judge; the late self-generated assertions of innocence and Asperger's Syndrome did not provide a reasonable basis to disturb the plea or require exercise of discretion to reverse it; refusal to allow reversal of plea was a proper exercise of judicial discretion and the application is refused.
3 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. LAM HOI KIT

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC84/2022

The judge excluded the alleged words at arrest and the defendant's signing of the police notebook because of credible doubt that improper pressure or inducement had produced them, but admitted the video‑recorded interview and its agreed transcript because the interview contained detailed, volunteered answers, there was no convincing evidence of coaching or inducement, and the defendant appeared to confess voluntarily having realized conviction was likely.
19 Aug 2022

香港特別行政區訴黎明耀

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1217
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC41/2022

The appellate judge held that the trial judge correctly found the admissions were voluntary and corroborated, that the defence medical evidence did not establish police assault or undermine voluntariness, and that the father's role was appropriate; therefore there was no arguable ground of error in admitting or relying upon the confessions and the application for leave to appeal against conviction was rightly refused.
8 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ-WAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC391/2019

Defence failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a fair trial is impossible; DPC 11707 had a minor role, other witnesses can give evidence on key matters, the voluntariness of admissions will be decided by a judge in a voir dire with the prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution took reasonable steps to locate the DPC with no evidence of bad faith; accordingly the application for a permanent stay is dismissed.
4 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. LAM CHIU MO

Citation

[2020] HKCA 393
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC206/2018

The court found that the matters raised by the applicant, including alleged tampering, weight discrepancies, failure to use tamper‑proof bags, alleged violence, and claimed misdirection, were without substance; the trial judge had properly and adequately directed the jury on law and evidence and left factual determinations to them; there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal and therefore leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
6 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. LAU TAK MONG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 106
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC337/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge gave adequate directions on burden, credibility and inferential reasoning; there was no real danger the jury engaged in impermissible reasoning or shifted the burden of proof, and the remaining circumstantial evidence (keys, attempt to open room, drugs and scales in mah-jong room, home visit permit) sufficed for a safe conviction on Count 1.
20 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/2015

(1) The 1st defendant's ground failed: where prosecution does not accept a plea to a lesser alternative and proceeds on the principal count, the plea is treated as a nullity and the jury need not be asked to convict on the alternative count; (2) The 3rd defendant's conviction must be quashed because the judge failed to direct the jury that if they found the defendant's account of coercion in the taking of out-of-court statements might be true they must disregard wholly any evidence of his failure to complain and not draw adverse inferences; that misdirection was material and required quashing…
4 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. KONG WAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. KONG WAI LUN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/2014

The judge properly refused to admit Mr Wong's evidence because the proffered events were not sufficiently similar or cogent to be relevant as similar fact evidence and only bore tenuously on credibility; even on the voir dire the evidence would not have altered the judge's conclusion that the appellant's statements were made and were voluntary, therefore the exclusion was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. POSSO VERGARA CRISTHIAN ENRIQUE

Citation

HKSAR v. POSSO VERGARA CRISTHIAN ENRIQUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC538/2011

Nothing advanced by the applicant, either in writing or orally, raised a point of law of great and general importance or demonstrated substantial and grave injustice within the meaning of s32(2) Cap 484; therefore the application for a certificate was 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.