THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SIU TONG

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SIU TONG

The complainant's statement to the officer in the presence of the accused was properly admissible as res gestae; there is no rule requiring a magistrate to produce prior statements used for refreshing memory; vigorous cross-examination by a co-defendant's counsel did not render the trial unfair; the magistrate's acceptance of prosecution witnesses and rejection of the appellant's account was open to him on the evidence and supports affirming the convictions.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LEUNG SIU TONG
Parties
Respondent (prosecution): The Queen; Appellant (convicted Defendant): Leung Siu-Tong; Co Defendant (acquitted): Lin Ke
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 1986
Case Number
HCMA942/1986
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Decision on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed
Legal Topics
Common Assault, Hearsay, Res Gestae, Credibility Assessment, Cross Examination, Magistrate's Duties
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Appellate Review Common Assault Hearsay Res Gestae Credibility Assessment Cross Examination +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent (prosecution)

Leung Siu-Tong

Appellant (convicted Defendant)

Lin Ke

Co Defendant (acquitted)

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Decision on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statement made by the complainant to a police officer in the presence of the accused was admissible as part of the res gestae
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate was obliged to produce prior statements used to refresh a witness's memory to the defendants
  3. 3 Whether cross-examination by co-defendant's solicitor was unfair to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant's statement to the officer in the presence of the accused was properly admissible as res gestae; there is no rule requiring a magistrate to produce prior statements used for refreshing memory; vigorous cross-examination by a co-defendant's counsel did not render the trial unfair; the magistrate's acceptance of prosecution witnesses and rejection of the appellant's account was open to him on the evidence and supports affirming the convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction refused
  • Convictions for common assault upheld