Director of Public Prosecutions v Michael Hou[1]

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Michael Hou[1] involved the respondents, a baccarat dealer and a casino patron, who were charged with engaging in conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence of admissions made by the respondents to the police during their interrogation. The respondents had been arrested and interrogated by casino employees prior to the arrival of the police. The casino employees, however, failed to caution the respondents, and the respondents made admissions to both the casino employees and the police. The trial judge excluded the admissions made to the police, ruling that it would be unfair to the respondents to allow the evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge’s decision to exclude the evidence was within his discretion, whether the casino employees were ‘investigating officials’ under the Crimes Act 1958 and Evidence Act 2008, and whether the admissions to the casino staff were illegally or improperly obtained. The court found that the trial judge’s ruling was well within his discretion, and that the casino employees were not ‘investigating officials’ for the purposes of the Crimes Act 1958 and Evidence Act 2008. The court held that the admissions to the casino staff were not illegally or improperly obtained, and therefore, the exclusion of the evidence was not unfair to the respondents. The court also found that the exclusion of the evidence was not a miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge had acted within his discretion.

The court held that the trial judge’s ruling to exclude the evidence of admissions made to the police was well within his discretion. The court found that the casino employees were not ‘investigating officials’ under the Crimes Act 1958 and Evidence Act 2008, and therefore, the failure to caution the respondents did not render the admissions to the casino staff inadmissible. The court also found that the admissions to the casino staff were not illegally or improperly obtained, and that the exclusion of the evidence did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the trial judge had acted within his discretion, and the appeal was dismissed.