Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Video-recorded interview

Legal area

Court

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.
16 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. THAPA MANISH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1188
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC611/2019

The judge found the prosecution proved the VRIs and notebook entries were voluntary: no reliable evidence showed police or interpreter promised pre-approved bail, the cautions and questioning were proper and flowed from accused answers, defence allegations were inconsistent or implausible, and absence of record of visitors or cash transfer did not establish inducement; therefore the VRIs and notebook entries are admissible.
6 Sept 2019

HKSAR v. LEUNG WING FUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1018
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC324/2018

Replaying the video-recorded interview in the summing-up was a permissible exercise because the video is the evidence and was replayed so the jury could reassess it with full knowledge of defence allegations; the judge gave full and proper directions on confessional material and on how to treat absence of records; the complaints about specific comments and alleged omissions were either unarguable or did not demonstrate prejudice or lack of balance such as to found a reasonably arguable appeal or a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
6 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC22/2017

Leave to appeal was granted on the ground of substantial and grave injustice because it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge's summing-up relied on mistranslated portions of the applicant's interview in a way that may have deprived the applicant of a fair trial.
22 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. LO SHING LOK

Citation

HKSAR v. LO SHING LOK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC5/2015

The conviction was quashed because the trial judge repeatedly mischaracterised and denigrated the defence in his summing-up, thereby presenting an unfair and unbalanced account to the jury that could have misled them; although the alternative verdict direction was unnecessary it caused no prejudice; in the interests of justice a retrial before a different judge was ordered.
27 May 2016

HKSAR v. LAM WAI SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM WAI SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC289/2015

All complaints lacked merit: applicant consented to English trial so interpretation delays did not cause unfairness; only one expert report was placed in evidence and oral evidence covered ranges cited so no jury confusion; correction of VRI timing was made before summing‑up, was explained to the jury and did not prejudice the defence (indeed it advantaged the applicant); judge properly exercised discretion in refusing to reopen the defence and there was no evidence of intimidation; accordingly leave to appeal and an appeal aid certificate were refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAM HOI KIT

HKSAR v. THAPA MANISH AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LEUNG WING FUNG

HKSAR v. CHAN KA CHUN

HKSAR v. LO SHING LOK

HKSAR v. LAM WAI SUM