Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voluntariness of confessions

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2026

CHEN JINHUI v. HUANG YUEXIA, the person appointed to represent the estate of WONG KAM SAN, Deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 404
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV178/2021

Leave granted to the 4th to 6th Defendants to adduce Items 3-1 to 3-17 as new evidence because (a) Items 3-1 to 3-4 and 3-16 are post-trial and properly considered under the court's discretion; (b) Items 3-5 to 3-9 are post-trial confessions by fraud participants and relevant; (c) Items 3-10, 3-11, 3-15 and 3-17 are pre-trial items that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence and, considered with other evidence, would probably have an important influence on the result; (d) the items are sufficiently credible and the defendants did not unjustifiably delay obtaining or applying t…
21 Jan 2025

HKSAR v. CHOW YAN TUNG IRIS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 93
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC156/2024

The trial judge's findings that the applicant's admissions were voluntary and credible were unimpeached on appeal; given the seriousness and potential harm of repeated arson in a multi-storey building the sentence imposed was within the permissible range and appropriately discounted; therefore leave to appeal is refused and the convictions and sentence are affirmed.
21 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴趙名宇及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA223/2023

Trial judge correctly found confessions and recorded admissions to be voluntary after consideration of evidence; objective evidence (CCTV, sales records) combined with admissions established dishonest intent and coordinated conduct in selecting high-value items not paid for; on rehearing the appellate court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, upholding convictions.
27 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴關詠恩

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1424
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC166/2019

The trial judge erred by making determinative factual findings during the special issues procedure (accepting an oral confession and the physical source of the drugs) without properly addressing voluntariness and before the appellant gave full general evidence; those procedural errors, in the absence of overwhelming independent evidence to cure them, rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe — the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence are quashed.
7 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. ALI HAIDAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1872
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/2019

No reasonably arguable grounds for appeal: DNA evidence on two packets could have originated from applicant with extremely low alternative match probability, judge's directions (including on voluntariness and interpreter issues) were adequate when read as a whole, allegations of counsel incompetence were unsupported by trial counsel and solicitor affirmations, and sentence was within the correct range with appropriate enhancement for Form 8; therefore leave to appeal against conviction and leave to appeal against sentence out of time were refused.
16 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. TAM HO NAM

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1384
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC219/2019

The admissions of the Ambulance Conversation did not prejudice the trial; the alleged deficiencies in directions (Liberato and Mushtaq) were not material because the required messages were conveyed when the summing-up is read as a whole, the applicant had previously made formal s65C admissions of voluntariness and did not withdraw them, and the claim of oppression was not credibly established; failure to give propensity limb did not render trial unfair in context of an admitted brutal killing; conviction was safe and appeal dismissed.
7 Aug 2020

HKSAR v. ALI NAZAKAT

Citation

[2020] HKCA 679
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC15/2019

The court held that the dishonesty offences formed part of the single course of criminal conduct and were therefore relevant and admissible to present the whole picture to the jury; however, some material in the 3rd and 4th VRIs could be arguably more prejudicial than probative and should have been redacted, rendering those discrete admissibility issues reasonably arguable on appeal; the jury directions on drunkenness were ultimately adequate and the sentencing decisions, including enhancement for immigration status and consecutive term, were within judicial discretion and not manifestly exce…
18 Mar 2020

香港特別行政區訴趙振林

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 431
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA549/2019

The trial judge's acceptance of the victim's consistent testimony together with a voluntary written admission provided sufficient evidence to convict; there were no exceptional reasons to disturb the trial judge's credibility findings, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and 13‑month sentence are affirmed.
27 Feb 2019

HKSAR v. YIP KIM WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 206
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC307/2015

The Court refused leave and dismissed the appeals because the stay application for illegal rendition was unsustainable given established mutual assistance practice and prosecution's reasonable steps to secure evidence; the prosecution's disclosure obligations were met as far as reasonable steps allowed and absence of GDPSD witnesses did not render confessions inadmissible; the challenged confessions were left to the jury by tactical election and not withdrawn as no clear error was shown; re-enactments were properly admitted; and the 19-year sentence for Count 3 was not manifestly excessive gi…
27 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

Citation

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC164/2017

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the challenged admissions (verbal admission at Sha Tau Kok, the post‑record, and the video‑recorded interview and transcript) were voluntary; alleged threats, inducements and coaching were not established as having produced oppression; accused's transient illness did not render admissions involuntary; court declines to exclude admissions in exercise of discretion.