HKSAR v. GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS

HCCC 299/2024

[2026] HKCFI 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 299 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR RULING

________________________

1.  The four defendants are jointly charged with murder. The 4^th defendant, Gurjinder Singh, who I shall refer to as Gurjinder to distinguish him from two of the other defendants who have the same family name of Singh, challenges the admissibility of any evidence relating to his interviews by the police, and to a re-enactment of the events which gave rise to this prosecution, on the basis that such statements as he made in those interviews and during that re-enactment which might be said to amount to an admission that he took part in the attack on the deceased were not made voluntarily in the sense that they were induced by promises alleged to have been made to him. A voir dire was held to determine that. At the conclusion of the voir dire, I ruled that these statements were admissible and could be given in evidence. In accordance with the Court’s usual practice, I said that I would give the reasons for my ruling at the conclusion of the defendants’ trial. That I now do.

2.  The deceased was attacked in the early hours of 29 August 2022 in Yau Ma Tei in the vicinity of the junction between Nathan Road and Jordan Road.  A few days later on 2 September, Gurjinder went to Yau Ma Tei Police Station with his solicitor.  He had presumably heard that the police were looking for him.  At some time after his arrival at the police station, he was arrested.  Later that evening, he was taken to Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station to be interviewed, after which he was returned to Yau Ma Tei Police Station.  On the following day, he was again taken to Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station to be interviewed again, after which he was taken back to Yau Ma Tei Police Station.  On the next day – 4 September – he was taken to Nathan Road at the junction with Jordan Road for the purpose of re-enacting what had happened there, after which he was returned to Yau Ma Tei Police Station.  Later that day, he was again taken to Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station to be interviewed. Once again, he was returned to Yau Ma Tei Police Station following that interview.  Nothing of importance was said in either the interview on 3 September or in either of the two interviews on 4 September.  The substance of the challenge relates to what Gurjinder said during the 1^st interview which started on 2 September and continued into the early hours of the following morning, and what he said during the re-enactment.

3.  Gurjinder gave evidence in the voir dire.  His evidence initially about the promises made to him was that he was told: “You help us and we’ll help you.  That’s because you were born in Hong Kong, your record is clean, and nothing is going to happen to you.” He claims that he was told that two or three times – perhaps even more – by various officers when being driven to or from Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station. That was in part consistent with the written grounds of objection drafted by Ian Polson, his counsel, which were sent to my clerk, among others, on 28 November 2025.  What those grounds did not say was that he had been told that nothing was going to happen to him.  Indeed, later on in his evidence, Gurjinder said that they had also told him that they would let him go if he co-operated with them.  Again, that had not been in the written grounds of objection.

4.  These omissions from the written grounds of objection are significant.  Since his case is that the police promised to help him if he co-operated with them, one might have expected the written grounds of objection to spell out the nature of the help which, according to him, was to be given in return for that co-operation – namely, that nothing was going to happen to him and that he would be allowed to go.  The fact that the nature of that help was not spelled out in the grounds of objection – and the fact that a particular feature of that help (that they would let him go)  was mentioned for the first time only later in his evidence – were among the reasons why Ms Chow for the prosecution suggested that Gurjinder was making it up as he went along.

5.  In addition, Ms Chow relied on the evidence of the many police officers who gave evidence in the voir dire. Since Gurjinder could not say which of the officers told him what he claims he was told, Ms Chow called all the officers who had taken Gurjinder to and from Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station.  They all denied having spoken to Gurjinder at all during the journeys.

6.  In his evidence, Gurjinder talked of a Punjabi officer called John.  Initially he said that he’d seen John’s photo, but later in his evidence he said that he’d met John twice, and that John’s younger brother was a friend of his.  He claimed that on three occasions he was handed a mobile phone to speak to John.  On at least two of those occasions, it had been a woman police officer who had handed him the phone.  On the first occasion, John told him that they knew that he had not been involved, and that he should just tell the police what he knew.  He went further than that when Ms Chow cross-examined him.  He said then that he had not been ready to go on the re-enactment, but John had told him that nothing was going to happen to him, and that if he helped them, they would help him.

7.  Despite these shifts in Gurjinder’s account, I cannot exclude the possibility that he was indeed told what he claims he was told.  I appreciate that allegations of the kind Gurjinder makes are easy to make, and that the only way of refuting them is by the oral evidence of the police officers involved.  At the same time, though, the investigation by the police into a major incident is immeasurably helped if a suspect chooses to tell his side of the story.  Not only can it lead to other lines of investigation, but it can make it easier to prove the suspect’s own involvement.  Of course, the police should not encourage someone to talk by making promises to them, but in the real world there can be no doubt that that is going to happen occasionally.  I cannot be sure that that did not happen in this case.

8.  However, what I am quite sure about is that Gurjinder did not agree to talk as a result of being told that, if he did, nothing would happen to him and he would be allowed to go.  I say that for three reasons.  First, there were times in his interviews when Gurjinder chose not to do what the police wanted him to do.  For example, he declined to give the police the password for his mobile until he’d had advice on the topic from his solicitor.  That rather suggests that he was content to tell the police the things he did tell them about.  And although Gurjinder claimed that he did not know that he was entitled not to say anything, the transcripts of his interviews and of what was said at the re-enactment show that he was indeed cautioned in the usual way.  In these circumstances, it would have been entirely to be expected for Gurjinder to want to give the police his account of what had happened.

9.  Secondly – and much more importantly – Gurjinder gave evidence of what his solicitor had told him before he surrendered himself to the police, legal professional privilege having been expressly waived.  That advice was that if he had not done anything, he should surrender himself.  Gurjinder did not say that his solicitor had advised him not to answer any questions the police had for him.  Indeed, Gurjinder says that John told him to tell the police what he knew.

10.  Thirdly – and most important of all – the account he gave to the police was for the most part exculpatory – at least that was what he would have thought.  The only thing which he admitted doing was tripping up the deceased with a cricket bat.  The reality, I am sure, is that he thought that the police knew that he had been present when the deceased had been attacked, and this was his chance to let the police know that the role he had played had been peripheral at best.  I am sure that that was the real reason why he chose to answer their questions about what had happened.  It had had nothing to do with what he claims the police had told him.  I am sure that even if the police had told him what he claimed, he would have answered their questions in the same way.

11.  In his written grounds of objection, Mr Polson stated that “[t]he combined effect of the promises of help if [Gurjinder] answered questions and the helpless position [Gurjinder] found himself had the effect of overcoming his will.”  I therefore decided, not just to read the transcripts of the interviews, and what was said in the re-enactment, but also to watch at least parts of them to see if I could detect any “overcoming” of his “will”.  I did not.  What I saw was a man answering questions entirely voluntarily.  That begs the question whether he was volunteering the answers he gave because he’d been promised help if he did, or because he’d been advised by John to tell the police what he knew and he wanted to let the police know that he hadn’t known what was going to happen to the deceased and that his own involvement in what had happened had been peripheral.  I am sure that it was the latter.

12.  It was for these reasons that I ruled that what Gurjinder said to the police when he was interviewed and during the re-enactment was admissible and could be given in evidence.