Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 83v criminal procedure ordinance

Legal area

Court

9 May 2017

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as Yu Wenjie) (alias Eric Yee)

Citation

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as Yu Wenjie) (alias Eric Yee)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC172/2016

The application to admit fresh evidence was refused because the 3rd applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not adducing the evidence at the February 2015 hearings and therefore did not satisfy the conditions of s83V(2); in the exercise of the court's discretion under s83V(1) the evidence was also not appropriate to admit in the interests of justice.
13 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. WONG KA CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KA CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC52/2015

The Court refused leave under section 83V to adduce fresh evidence because the proposed psychiatric and educational evidence and the VRI would not, if received, afford a ground of appeal or have materially altered the sentencing outcome; the sentencing judge did not err in declining to order background reports or treating the applicant as 'extreme youth', and the starting point of 24 years reduced by one-third to 16 years was appropriate for trafficking over 8 kilogrammes of ketamine.
16 Oct 2015

HKSAR v. TAN XIU YUN

Citation

HKSAR v. TAN XIU YUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC346/2014

The Court refused to admit the fresh evidence because the applicant failed to satisfy s83V(2): she did not provide a reasonable explanation for not adducing the medical report at trial (counsel's advice was not shown to be incompetently flagrant) and the proposed testimony and report were not evidence likely to be credible given the surrounding facts; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
12 Sept 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN KAU TAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAU TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC26/2004

Given the admitted non-disclosure, documents narrowly directed to the reasons for non-disclosure are relevant and necessary for a just determination under s83V; production of the specified items ordered within 7 days because the requests are limited, relevant and not oppressive; application to compel earlier filing of affirmations refused as unnecessary.
24 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. CHU MAN FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU MAN FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC372/2004

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's acceptance of PW1's identification was plainly justified by multiple and prolonged encounters making identification reliable; the absence of an identification parade did not make the prosecution case unsafe; and the proposed immigration record did not satisfy s83V(2) because it would not render the verdict unsafe and there was no reasonable explanation for its non‑production at trial, therefore fresh evidence was refused and leave to appeal dismissed.
18 Aug 2000

HKSAR v. NG TAI HEI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. NG TAI HEI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC130/2000

The convictions were upheld because the trial judge fairly and accurately assessed the key credibility issues, the late police computer entries were hearsay of unproven origin and could not be given weight, and no reasonable prospect existed that further investigation or an adjournment would have produced material that would render the convictions unsafe.
12 May 1988

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC490/1987

Given the insufficiency of the transcript to determine material facts about juror inattention and the public interest in establishing whether the jury's verdict was safe, it was necessary and expedient in the interests of justice to order all compellable persons named (trial counsel, solicitors, articled clerk) except the appellant himself to attend and be examined before the Court of Appeal when the appeals are relisted; the Court refused at this stage to order reception of that evidence but left the matter open with liberty to restore.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as Yu Wenjie) (alias Eric Yee)

HKSAR v. WONG KA CHUN

HKSAR v. TAN XIU YUN

HKSAR v. CHAN KAU TAI

HKSAR v. CHU MAN FAI

HKSAR v. NG TAI HEI AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. TAM CHUNG SHING AND OTHERS