Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voluntariness

Legal area

Court

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.
26 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. YIU CHI MING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 99
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2018

The appeal is dismissed: no inferential‑reasoning direction was required because the prosecution did not present a standalone circumstantial case; and although the Mushtaq direction was not given in the verbatim structured form of the specimen, when viewed as a whole in the factual and procedural context of the trial the judge sufficiently conveyed the essential Mushtaq principles so the conviction is not unsafe.
22 Feb 2019

HKSAR v. ALI HAIDAR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC2/2018

The judge found on credibility that the defendant understood simple English, was properly informed of rights including right to interpreter, there was no assault or coaching by police, and no Hindi interpreter was available; therefore the VRI admissions were voluntary and the court declined to exercise its residual discretion to exclude the evidence.
10 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. LEGASPI STEPHANIE JOY

Citation

[2018] HKCA 594
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC241/2017

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused because the grounds were fact‑based and not reasonably arguable; the trial judge was entitled to find the applicant's admissions voluntary, to reject the defence evidence about the boyfriend and the artistic value of images, and to impose the sentences given the sophistication of the operation and applicable sentencing factors.
16 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. WONG WING MAN, MANDY alias WANG XUEXIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC76/2017

On the facts the court was satisfied police were conducting general inquiries with an open mind and had not at that stage gathered reasonable grounds to suspect the 1st defendant; officers denied any oppressive conduct, the statement was read and explained to her despite her limited ability to read traditional Chinese, and there was no basis to exclude it for unfairness. Therefore the statement dated 12 August 2015 was voluntary and admissible.
15 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. NGAI HA ALSO KNOWN AS SO YUEN CHU

Citation

HKSAR v. NGAI HA ALSO KNOWN AS SO YUEN CHU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC107/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's credibility findings in favour of the police were unimpeached, the applicant's admissions were properly admitted as voluntary, the circumstantial evidence (quantity, packaging, value, venue and her management role) supported an inference of trafficking rather than personal use, the sentencing judge applied the correct individual approach and totality principle, and no reasonably arguable grounds with prospects of success were identified.
8 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. PANG HIU SAN

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG HIU SAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC3/2014

The Court held that Hong Kong should follow Mushtaq: where evidence before the jury suggests a confession was or may have been induced by oppression (including cases where the defendant denies making it) the jury must be directed that if they so conclude they must disregard the confession; the trial judge failed to give such a direction and the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
17 May 2012

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2011

Even if the trial judge erred by stating at the special issue stage that he was satisfied the applicants had made the inculpatory remarks, the error was technical and not prejudicial in context of overwhelming evidence linking the applicants to the attack; admissions were held to be voluntary and admissible and, in any event, the proviso in s83(1) CPO would apply to uphold the convictions and sentences.
12 Jul 2011

HKSAR v. JOERAWAN WIKASH SHARDHANAND

Citation

HKSAR v. JOERAWAN WIKASH SHARDHANAND<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC278/2010

The Court held the Arsenal Street video interview was voluntary and properly admitted (applicant had opportunity to seek a lawyer, appeared coherent on tape and was willing to continue); there was sufficient evidence, including the applicant's own admissions and the surrounding conduct, to require him to answer; the one year aggravating uplift was not justified on the material before the judge and the sentence was reduced from 26 to 25 years imprisonment.
9 Mar 2010

HKSAR v. OKAFOR PETER ERIC NWABUNWANNE

Citation

HKSAR v. OKAFOR PETER ERIC NWABUNWANNE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC63/2008

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the required principles for assessing out-of-court admissions (as set out in the Specimen Direction), an omission that materially affected the safety of the verdict; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. A retrial was ordered in the public interest given the serious offence and strong evidence.