Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unused material disclosure

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. TSUCHIYA KOJI

Citation

HKSAR v. TSUCHIYA KOJI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2014

The conviction was unsafe because potentially relevant and admissible unused evidence (female DNA on one packet) that tended materially to support the applicant's credibility on the central issue of knowledge was not adduced before the jury while the applicant was unrepresented; this failure compromised the fairness of the trial and warranted quashing the conviction and sentence and ordering a retrial.
23 Apr 1999

CHUEN LAI SZE v. HKSAR

Citation

CHUEN LAI SZE v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC2/1999

The application was dismissed because Chung's statements were irrelevant and unhelpful to the defence, no reasonable grounds were shown that his non‑production prejudiced the applicant or warranted a stay, the prosecution or magistrate could not properly have called him, and the complaint of counsel's alleged incompetence lacked any firm basis; consequently there was no prospect of success justifying extension of time.
26 May 1992

RE THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL

Citation

RE THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP802/1992

The magistrate properly confined himself to the admissible evidence and made a prima facie finding justifying committal; the Attorney‑General's Guidelines do not impose a duty of disclosure on extradition magistrates at committal and the magistrate lacks power under the treaty and extradition legislation to order the general disclosure sought; alleged nondisclosure and inclusion of inadmissible material did not render the committal unfair or void, therefore both the habeas corpus and judicial review applications fail.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TSUCHIYA KOJI

CHUEN LAI SZE v. HKSAR

RE THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL