THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHI-TIN AND OTHERS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHI-TIN AND OTHERS

The magistrate erred in disallowing dock identifications and in requiring descriptive foundations where witnesses had repeatedly seen the alleged blackmailers and the victim had identified them to the arresting police; a dock identification was permissible in those circumstances and the appropriate remedy was to remit the case for retrial by another magistrate.

Citation
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAU CHI-TIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Appellant (crown): The Attorney General; Respondent (defendant): LAU Chi-tin; Respondent (defendant): TSANG Yan-on; Respondent (defendant): TSANG Tin-luk
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 September 1988
Case Number
HCMA300/1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Hearing on Case Stated Before High Court (appellate Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for retrial
Legal Topics
Dock Identification, Identification Parade, Admissibility of Identification Evidence, Court Discretion to Exclude Prejudicial Evidence, Remittal for Retrial
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Theft/blackmail Dock Identification Identification Parade Admissibility of Identification Evidence Court Discretion to Exclude Prejudicial Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Appellant (crown)

LAU Chi-tin

Respondent (defendant)

TSANG Yan-on

Respondent (defendant)

TSANG Tin-luk

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Hearing on Case Stated Before High Court (appellate Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a magistrate may require descriptive foundation before permitting a dock identification when no identification parade was held
  2. 2 Whether dock identification is admissible where the witness had multiple prior opportunities to observe the accused and identified them to police at arrest
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate abused discretion in disallowing dock identifications and directing acquittals rather than permitting identification evidence to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in disallowing dock identifications and in requiring descriptive foundations where witnesses had repeatedly seen the alleged blackmailers and the victim had identified them to the arresting police; a dock identification was permissible in those circumstances and the appropriate remedy was to remit the case for retrial by another magistrate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for retrial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Remit case under section 119(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance for trial de novo before another magistrate