HKSAR v. Lui Kin Hong, Jerry
Read the full judgment text of CACC 378/1998 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 February 1999.
1. Subject to any argument which Mr. Reading wishes to address as to the application of the proviso, we are in a position to indicate now that we are satisfied there is merit in the first ground of the appeal such as to warrant the quashing of the conviction. That is to say we are satisfied that crucial documentary evidence was wrongly introduced under section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap.8, which was used to establish the truth of the contents of the documents to be admitted. We shall, in
|
CACC000378/1998 CACC 378/98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.378 OF 1998 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 219 OF 1997)
------------------------------- Coram: Power, Ag. Chief Judge, H.C., Mayo & Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. Date of Hearing: 3, 4 & 5 February 1999 Date of Ruling: 5 February 1999 ---------------------- R U L I N G ---------------------- Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the ruling of the Court): 1. Subject to any argument which Mr. Reading wishes to address as to the application of the proviso, we are in a position to indicate now that we are satisfied there is merit in the first ground of the appeal such as to warrant the quashing of the conviction. That is to say we are satisfied that crucial documentary evidence was wrongly introduced under section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap.8, which was used to establish the truth of the contents of the documents to be admitted. We shall, in due course, hand down our full reasons for this decision.
Representation: Mr. John Reading, S.A.D.P.P. & Mr. Joseph To, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent Mr. Gerard McCoy, S.C. & Mr. Raymond Pierce instructed by Messrs. C.L. Chow & Lam for Applicant. |
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 378/1998