Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reopening prosecution case

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2020

香港特別行政區訴牟连翠

Citation

[2020] HKDC 759
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC826/2019

Prosecution evidence was insufficient as it failed to produce explained, admissible transaction records or expert interpretation to show that the transactions gave reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime; the charts were not evidence; there was no evidence of an agreement with another person. Therefore a reasonable jury properly directed could not convict and there was no case to answer; charges dismissed.
8 May 2019

HKSAR v. NGAI HON KWONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1205
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC78/2016

The court found no sufficient basis to permit withdrawal of s65C admissions because the accused understood the scope of the admitted facts; there was no proven tampering or demonstrated unfairness warranting exclusion of the video‑recorded interviews so the videos could be played; and the prosecution's application to reopen its case was refused because the proposed evidence was not sufficiently important and reopening would be inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
6 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. LU XIUYU

Citation

HKSAR v. LU XIUYU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA841/2011

The magistrate erred by making an actual finding that the appellant had made the admission at the admissibility stage rather than assuming it had been made; because the Record of Interview was the sole evidence against the appellant and she denied it, the error was material and rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting allowing the appeal; after balancing factors a retrial was refused.
8 Apr 2003

HKSAR v. POON YU TING

Citation

HKSAR v. POON YU TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1145/2002

The Deputy High Court Judge affirmed the Magistrate's credibility and factual findings, held that the psychiatric evidence was rightly discounted because it relied on the appellant's unreliable account, found no prejudice from the late calling of PW5 or the translation error, and therefore concluded the conviction was safe and must be affirmed.
8 Jun 2000

HKSAR v. LEI PEI CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEI PEI CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA592/1999

The magistrate properly exercised her discretion to re-open the prosecution case; Exhibit P5 was voluntary and, with Exhibit P4 establishing authority, admissible and sufficient to convict both appellants; the fines were not manifestly excessive but the costs order against the company was quashed for unfairness in reasoning.
7 Jan 1985

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHOW CHUEN FU AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHOW CHUEN FU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA351/1984

Magistrate did not misapply the law in refusing to re-open the prosecution: although reasonable inferences could have been drawn from the admitted facts, the omitted matters (date of importation and proprietor's assent) went to the substance of the prosecution and their late admission would have caused injustice to the respondents; consequently the magistrate's decision to acquit on the admitted evidence was lawful and the High Court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 牟连翠

HKSAR v. NGAI HON KWONG

HKSAR v. LU XIUYU

HKSAR v. POON YU TING

HKSAR v. LEI PEI CHI AND ANOTHER

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHOW CHUEN FU AND ANOTHER

香港特別行政區訴牟连翠